Last Minute Changes and a Solution to my Platform Problems?

[Ray Von]

My current build has hit a couple of snags of late, one being a platform too long for the track - resulting in visiting trains sticking out at awkward angles (see pic) 

The second issue was my sudden urge to add more track to the rearmost part of the layout, resulting in planning permission for proposed station building being withdrawn(!)

In the wee hours of this morning I had an epiphany - what if I moved "platform one" over, in between the two new lines?  But, this would have two major impacts:

 

1) The former "Awkward Line" would now be a siding straddled by two platform-serving lines, allowing for coach and or engine holding.  Plus, not so much of a problem that the visiting locos sit slightly askance here...

 

2) Operation. Haven't yet worked out in my mind if the operation of the layout will work as well.  The lines are served by a traverser (or will be when it's built!) the traverser will feed trains on to the layout from the immediate front line and the rearmost one.  This means that trains that visit platform island 1-2 (from the top traverser line) will not be able to transfer across to platform island 3-4, as they did before - not "on layout" anyway, of course there will be scope to switch between lines via the traverser.

So, my issue is - before I start hammering down track - would the layout be worse off for these changes?  Help!

 

(Pics explained: top one is proposed new configuration, marker pen standing in for platform 3-4, right hand points to be added.

Middle is an overall view of the new configuration.

Bottom is the current layout, showing "sticky out rear end problem."

 

 

Edited September 12, 2020 by Ray Von

[Dungrange]

Personally, I don't like the arrangement that you had previously (bottom picture) as the four car multiple unit is passed the clearance point that would allow platform two to be used (in real life).  I know you can squeeze something past in model form, but it's not prototypical and looks toy like.  I think it would be better limiting these lines to two or three car units, so that they properly fit the platforms.

 

With the alternative option (which I like better), I'm assuming that the back story is that it was once two separate railway stations.  Company A built Platforms 3 and 4 and a slightly later date, Company B built their station alongside and these ultimately became Platforms 1 and 2 post grouping / nationalisation when the stations became integrated.  If each island platform was built by a separate company and approached from a different direction then I guess there is no pressing need for each platform to be able to access all lines in the station approach.  There would potentially have been some link between the two for a stock transfer, albeit I suppose that it could be argued that that connection is off scene because it would perhaps most likely have been provided wherever the freight facilities are assumed to be (since goods wagons would be passed from one company to another much more often than passenger stock).

[Ray Von]

Thanks Dungrange, that's really helpful.  When I had the idea for adding the second (unplanned) track, I sort of had in mind that it would be serving the station from a completely different area to the other one, and that the terminus was at a meeting of lines (maybe regions?) but not of intersecting ones, giving the setup the feel of a really well used station (passengers rushing to catch / standing around waiting for, connections) - so your words really back that up, cheers.

Edited September 12, 2020 by Ray Von
Typo