Returning to the original topic (having only just noticed this thread), as others have said, there are two versions because different people have different preferences as to the level of simplicity or complexity, and also whether particular features are desirable or not.
The timings in Experimental are actually very carefully calibrated on the basis of having two explicit timing scales: one macro scale (years and months) and one micro scale (minutes and hours). The micro scale implicitly exists in Standard, derivable from the vehicle speeds and an abstraction as to distance, but it is made explicit in Experimental. Dwell times, physics, waiting and spacing times and journey times are all calculated on the micro scale. I note the point that Dr. Supergood makes about the issues with the timing slots: those will have to be addressed in due course (and anyone who is willing to have a look at the coding and seek to improve it would be most welcome to do so).
As to trains stopping in the middle of the platform, it is fairly common in the UK for trains to do so, especially where there is a short train and a long platform with the entrance in the middle.
I don't agree with Prissi that Experimental is focussed solely or mainly on trains: a number of Experimental features are specific to aircraft, others to waterways, and still others to roads: the key differences (journey times and routing, passenger generation, comfort, range, etc.) are mode agnostic. Only a minority of features are rail specific (generally, those relating to railway signalling or certain cosmetic features such as the sequence of reversing convoys).