The Vee and how it works

[Guest jim s-w]

Hi All

 

This is how all vee's work and provided you have consistent standards with regard to track and wheels it should work like this regardless of the gauge used. If you use mixed wheel standards chances are it might not work.

 

 

The top image shows the wheelset on normal track before the kink where the stockrail becomes the wingrail.

 

In the second picture the wheel is about halfway along the 'gap' you can see that the wheel is still supported on its outer edge by the wingrail

 

In the final picture, the wheel is still just supported by the wingrail and has now picked up the vee in its center. There will me a minute jolt as the outer edge of the wheel isn't the same diameter as the inner due to coning. This amount is so small its not noticeable through either sight or touch.

 

So while the vee is very long you can see that the wheel never loses contact with the rail and never wants to drop into the gap. Nothing to fear from very large pointwork

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[Gary H]

Its worthy of note that on the prototype, the "crossing nose" as we call it in prototype parlance (the tip of the vee), is actualy 5mm lower down than the oposing wing/knuckle rails. We'l sometimes build them up with welding to reprofile and maintain the 5mm as they can get badly battered. This 5mm is the compensator for the slope and coning of the wheels tyre. The checkrail also serves a a very important function to guide the wheels correctly into the flangeway and stop the flange from hitting the nose. It should be another critical dimmension depending on the gauge you work to.

I wish I had those gauges when I built my EM layout back along, would have saved me alot of time, Jim!

[Il Grifone]

It works just the same, even with coarser standards in theory. Obviously, the wheels need to be wider than scale to avoid dropping into the gap. It also illustrates why the critical dimension is from the back of one flange to the front of the other and not the infamous 'back to back'.

[Calnefoxile]

It works just the same, even with coarser standards in theory. Obviously, the wheels need to be wider than scale to avoid dropping into the gap. It also illustrates why the critical dimension is from the back of one flange to the front of the other and not the infamous 'back to back'.

 

Ok so how do I stop the new finer wheelsets that I have added to most of my rolling stock, dropping into the gap in the Vee on the Code 100 points or Double Slips??

 

Regards

 

Neal.

[Gary H]

Thats possibly the best "advert" for P4 standards Ive seen!

 

 

I can just imagine a "mini Gary" packing those sleepers!!

Ooh the irony of it! I dont know wether to laugh or cry at that Mickey

[Gary H]

Ok so how do I stop the new finer wheelsets that I have added to most of my rolling stock, dropping into the gap in the Vee on the Code 100 points or Double Slips??

 

Regards

 

Neal.

The harsh reality Neal, I dont think you can TBH. I dont think you can have one without the other, your trying to mix 2 differing standards of wheel and track. It would be the same senario if I were to use an H0 P87 standard wheel on my Code 83 H0 track, although the gauge is the same the the flange ways are to big for a P87 wheel and they would fall down the gap.

[Gary H]

Cry and then laugh!! Tis the better way to do things I find

 

PS

 

Ill be checking out Liskeard and district dreckly (delayed due to Man Flu..) so I hope all the East Cornwall track is looking TipTop

Ha, dunno about that, we got hardly any staff left to do anything anymore apart from inspections!

Anyway, moving on

[Il Grifone]

Ok so how do I stop the new finer wheelsets that I have added to most of my rolling stock, dropping into the gap in the Vee on the Code 100 points or Double Slips??

 

Regards

 

Neal.

 

There are only two ways, I can think of:-

 

1. Tighten up the flangeways (which requires the use of 00-SF or DOGA standards - we won't go into those again! - and a certain amount of hand built track)

or

2. Fill in the gap so that the stock runs on its flanges through the gap:(. This only works if all the flanges are the same depth else you get 'dropping' or 'bumping'. (Hornby Dublo used this method - it works but looks awful.)

 

Peco Streamline code 100 originally was designed as 'universal' trackwork to take Dublo and Tri-ang wheels and would only just accept BRMSB/NMRA wheels. It has been tightened up since, I understand, but I possess a point that almost always derails correctly gauged NMRA wheels.

[craigwelsh]

Ok so how do I stop the new finer wheelsets that I have added to most of my rolling stock, dropping into the gap in the Vee on the Code 100 points or Double Slips??

 

Regards

Neal.

I think the numbers Martin Wynne quoted on the thread of Jim's on the old forum were the tyre being greater than twice the width of the flangeway gap.

 

In P4 the flangeway is 0.68mm and so all wheels need to be at least 1.4mm wide, I think most were about 2mm but I could check.

 

Peco is a bit odd here as from what I remember their track has a tighter gauge on the check rails than at the wing rail. Ideally you need a vernier to check both the track and how wide your new wheels are.

 

You can use the back-to-back perfectly well if your chosen standard dictates the wheel flange width and radii etc. 00 doesn't which is why you can't use a single b2b gauge with various makes of wheel..

[3 link]

I think the numbers Martin Wynne quoted on the thread of Jim's on the old forum were the tyre being greater than twice the width of the flangeway gap.

 

In P4 the flangeway is 0.68mm and so all wheels need to be at least 1.4mm wide, I think most were about 2mm but I could check.

 

Peco is a bit odd here as from what I remember their track has a tighter gauge on the check rails than at the wing rail. Ideally you need a vernier to check both the track and how wide your new wheels are.

 

 

 

I can vouch that the Peco turn outs in 7mm are also odd, with a distinctive drop using slaters wheels and Pecos own wheels !!!! I cannot remember the exact thread but someone suggested gauge narrowing to 31.5mm through the turn outs seemed to work ok. Although when I have built C&L turnouts I have not had any problems with wheel drop through the vee.

 

Regards, Martyn.

[Guest jim s-w]

The harsh reality Neal, I dont think you can TBH. I dont think you can have one without the other, your trying to mix 2 differing standards of wheel and track. It would be the same senario if I were to use an H0 P87 standard wheel on my Code 83 H0 track, although the gauge is the same the the flange ways are to big for a P87 wheel and they would fall down the gap.

 

Afraid that is true

 

If you want to use finescale wheels then you have to use finescale track. If you use course scale track you have to use course scale wheels. The wheel standards have to match the track standards.

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[Calnefoxile]

Ok so how do I stop the new finer wheelsets that I have added to most of my rolling stock, dropping into the gap in the Vee on the Code 100 points or Double Slips??

 

Regards

 

Neal.

 

Actually I think I may have confused the question a bit really, what I meant was replaced my original plastic wheels with metal wheels, as supplied by both Hornby and Bachmann.

 

I had a look at them last night and obviously they are 'thinner' than the old plastic wheels, that is what I meant by 'finer wheelsets' not that I had used finescale wheels.

 

Does that make sense????

 

Regards

 

Neal.

[craigwelsh]

Actually I think I may have confused the question a bit really, what I meant was replaced my original plastic wheels with metal wheels, as supplied by both Hornby and Bachmann.

 

I had a look at them last night and obviously they are 'thinner' than the old plastic wheels, that is what I meant by 'finer wheelsets' not that I had used finescale wheels.

Does that make sense????

 

Regards

Neal.

Blimey plastic wheels! I certainly assumed you were replacing something like the Hornby/Bachmann with Romford or similar.

 

Hornby wheels are a bit better, Bachmann sometimes has issues getting the things round.. My experience was only with code 75 points and there was no problems with those wheels on that if the B2B was increased slightly. Code 100 though i'm not sure if they ever tightened up the flange gauge so someone else will have to cover that.

[Il Grifone]

From measurement, the Hornby wheels are 2.5mm, thick of which 0.5mm is flange (BRMSB standard) and should have a back to back of 14.5mm. I believe Bachmann veer towards NMRA RP25-110, but don't have any of the latest production to check. BRMSB flangeways are ('were' as the standard is obsolescent?) 1.25mm.

 

At the crossing nose, from one running rail to the far wing rail, the distance is 16.5 + 1.25 (ignoring the trigonometry involved due to the crossing angle as negligible) = 17.75 mm. The wheelset, with flange hard against the running rail, gives 0.5 + 14.5 + 2.5 (flange + back to back + wheel thickness) = 17.5. The wheel will thus drop into the gap! .

 

For 00-SF, the arithmetic becomes 16.2 + 1.0 = 17.2 and we have 0.3mm or overlap which is sufficient to allow a tolerance of 0.2mm (+/- 0.1mm) on the dimensions and still not drop into the gap. (For DOGA add 0.3mm to track gauge and wheel back to back giving the same result.)

 

Using Peco etc. as they come, some sort of fill-in of the gap is required.

[Ravenser]

The harsh reality Neal, I dont think you can TBH. I dont think you can have one without the other, your trying to mix 2 differing standards of wheel and track. It would be the same senario if I were to use an H0 P87 standard wheel on my Code 83 H0 track, although the gauge is the same the the flange ways are to big for a P87 wheel and they would fall down the gap.

 

There's nothing you can do about "drop in", which is what jim s-w is illustrating

 

However there is another effect - the check rail should hold the wheelset so that the front of the flange is just away from the rail/gap at the frog . This stops the wheelset moving into the gap laterally . Something can be done about that one by lining the inside of the Peco checkrail

[craigwelsh]

There's nothing you can do about "drop in", which is what jim s-w is illustrating

 

However there is another effect - the check rail should hold the wheelset so that the front of the flange is just away from the rail/gap at the frog . This stops the wheelset moving into the gap laterally . Something can be done about that one by lining the inside of the Peco checkrail

What Jim is illustrating is that if you have consistent track and wheel standards there is no drop-in even on very shallow angles.. You shouldn't have drop-in at all if you use a width of wheel to match the chosen flangeway. As shown above most wheels don't satisfy this with Peco flangeways. In this case though you really want to improve the flangeway otherwise the wheels end up rediculously wide for todays standards.

 

You shouldn't really just fix the checkrails, the wing rails should be closer to the vee as well, the idea is to be consistent or it wont really fix it. If you close just the check rail up then surely the other wheel moves into the gap more if you don't close up the wing rail?

[Ravenser]

From measurement, the Hornby wheels are 2.5mm, thick of which 0.5mm is flange (BRMSB standard) and should have a back to back of 14.5mm. I believe Bachmann veer towards NMRA RP25-110, but don't have any of the latest production to check. BRMSB flangeways are ('were' as the standard is obsolescent?) 1.25mm.

 

At the crossing nose, from one running rail to the far wing rail, the distance is 16.5 + 1.25 (ignoring the trigonometry involved due to the crossing angle as negligible) = 17.75 mm. The wheelset, with flange hard against the running rail, gives 0.5 + 14.5 + 2.5 (flange + back to back + wheel thickness) = 17.5. The wheel will thus drop into the gap! .

 

For 00-SF, the arithmetic becomes 16.2 + 1.0 = 17.2 and we have 0.3mm or overlap which is sufficient to allow a tolerance of 0.2mm (+/- 0.1mm) on the dimensions and still not drop into the gap. (For DOGA add 0.3mm to track gauge and wheel back to back giving the same result.)

 

Using Peco etc. as they come, some sort of fill-in of the gap is required.

 

 

Not sure this is right .

 

First clarification - there are two DOGA standards - OO Fine and OO Intermediate. The practical reality is that most people building their own track use OO Intermediate not OO Fine, and it's a little frustrating to see it brushed over as if OO Intermediate does not exist and OO Fine is the only standard....

 

The OO Intermdiate back-to-back figure is 14.4mm +/-0.05mm

 

Second clarification - The distance from Wing rail to opposite running rail (or from check rail to running rail at the frog) must be [trackgauge minus flangeway] . Thus in the case of OO Intermediate this would be 16.5mm -1.25mm = 15.25mm

[ for the sake of good order the OO Intermediate track standard actually sets a nominal value of 1.20mm with a tolerance of +/-0.05mm . I.e. any flangeway between 1.15mm and 1.25mm is within the standard . Since BRMSB roller gauges for 1.25mm flangeway are readily available from several sources, the practical reality is that that is what people are likely to use to build track. There are a lot of layouts out there with such track, and they are (just) compliant with the DOGA OO Intermediate standard]

 

Third clarification: A proper NMRA RP25-110 wheelset will not "drop in" to a 1.25mm flangeway. The limit at which that occurs is >1.27mm (see the NMRA's standards where that is set as the maximum width of the crossing flangeway)

 

The nominal "front to back" will be 14.5+0.5mm = 15.0mm (Il griffon's Hornby case, assuming that these values are actually achieved precisely) or 14.4mm + 0.7mm = 15.1mm (RP25/100 , quoted to 1 decimal place - Bachmann in theory) . In practice the Bachmann factory has manufacturing tolerances on wheelsets that are a good deal more than 0.1mm on back to back. Hence the actual values from Bachmann wheelsets vary much more than the difference between their nominal standard and Hornby's nominal standard

 

If the gauge is 16.5mm , and the front-to-back is 15.0mm , then the difference is 1.5mm - and the tread must be more than 1.5mm wide to stay on the running rail. 2.0mm tread should be fine

[Guest jim s-w]

Hiya

 

As Martin posted on the old forum the golden rule is "The wheel width must be greater that double the flangeway gap." So a wheel that is 2.5mm wide is border line for OO track - Although the gauge is different if you think about it this a much smaller tolerance than I am prepared to work to in P4! Martin also mentions that a wheel width of 2.8mm is desirable. (which is the NMRA RP25-110 standard)

 

Think about it for a second. If you have a flangeway gap of 1.25mm then at the very point where the wheel strikes the vee itself there is the width of the tip of the vee plus 1.25mm on the side you are taking PLUS 1.25mm on the side the other wingrail is taking. That is as an absolute minimum 2.5mm assuming the tip of your vee is razor blade sharp.

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[martin_wynne]

Jim asked me to re-post this here. It was originally posted on YMR Forum , and also on Old RMweb.

________________________________________________________________

 

It's a common misconception that the length of the crossing (frog) gap is important to wheel drop problems. It isn't.

 

In fact it is the width of this gap which is important. The width of this gap at its widest is just in front of the tip of the vee. Where it is approximately equal to two flangeway gaps added together.

 

Notice that this width is the same whether the crossing angle is 1:5, 1:25, or even 1:100. It is always widest just in front of the vee, and there always two flangeway gaps wide.

 

If the overall width of a wheel is wider than this, it is physically impossible for the wheel to drop into the gap -- whether the crossing angle is 1:5, 1:25, or even 1:100 and no matter how long the gap.

 

Hence the well-known rule which applies to all railways -- the wheel width must be greater than two flangeway gaps.

 

For the 00-BF and NMRA-H0 standards, the flangeway gap is 1.25mm. So NO WHEEL SHOULD BE NARROWER THAN DOUBLE THIS -- i.e. 2.5mm wide minimum.

 

Romford/Markits wheels are exactly that, 2.5mm wide, so border-line for smooth running on 00-BF track.

 

RTR wheels such as Hornby should comply to the NMRA code 110 standard with a wheel width of 2.8mm. So it is physically impossible for them to drop in a gap which is only 2.5mm wide at its widest. They will therefore run smoothly on 00-BF track no matter how flat the crossing angle or how long the crossing gap. The wheel will roll smoothly off the wing rail onto the nose of the vee, and remain fully supported throughout.

 

On the other hand, if you use wheels narrower than 2.5mm such as NMRA code 88 (2.2mm wide) or EM wheels (2.3mm wide), clearly they are going to have a bumpy ride on 00-BF as they fall into the gap. It's not possible for something 2.2mm wide to remain suspended in mid-air over a gap 2.5mm wide!

 

(On the prototype the nose of the vee is blunted back from a sharp tip, so in practice a wheel has to be fractionally wider that two flangeway gaps.)

 

More about all this at http://00-sf.org.uk which improves matters by using 16.2mm gauge and smaller 1.0mm flangeways ("EM minus 2"). This then makes it possible to use the narrower wheels and keep them fully supported over the crossing gap.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Ravenser]

Hiya

 

As Martin posted on the old forum the golden rule is "The wheel width must be greater that double the flangeway gap." So a wheel that is 2.5mm wide is border line for OO track - Although the gauge is different if you think about it this a much smaller tolerance than I am prepared to work to in P4! Martin also mentions that a wheel width of 2.8mm is desirable. (which is the NMRA RP25-110 standard)

 

Think about it for a second. If you have a flangeway gap of 1.25mm then at the very point where the wheel strikes the vee itself there is the width of the tip of the vee plus 1.25mm on the side you are taking PLUS 1.25mm on the side the other wingrail is taking. That is as an absolute minimum 2.5mm assuming the tip of your vee is razor blade sharp.

 

Cheers

 

Jim

 

Jim:

 

Surely the critical dimension here is the wheel tread, not the overall thickness of the wheel? The thickness/thinness of the flange is irrelevant to whether there is enough wheel tread to bridge the flangeway at the crossing

 

Taking your point about "absolute minimum of 2.5mm" , if the check rail is correctly set for the wheelset , then the wheel should not ever "strike the Vee" - it should be held away from the Vee by the action of the check rail - the minimum value here being the check clearance

 

If the wheel strikes the Vee, then the value of the flangeway at the Vee/wing rail has surely become irrelevant - the flange is pressing on the Vee and all that matters is how much tread is projecting forward of the flange across the rail , and whether this is sufficient to bridge the gap to the "far side" of the gap at the Vee. The wing/Vee flangeway extends behind the back of the flange - how far behind is academic in this scenario

 

My recollection is that the tread on Hornby and Bachmann wheels is pretty well identical [i would need to put dial calipers on them to quote values precisely] - Bachmann have a slightly thicker flange than Hornby and a slightly narrower back to back. The "front to back" is very close in practice (nominal 0.1mm difference, generally less in practice) and with a very similar tread widths , the wheels are in practice identical from the point of view of "drop in"

 

And taking your illustration:

 

If you have a flangeway gap of 1.25mm then at the very point where the wheel strikes the vee itself there is the width of the tip of the vee plus 1.25mm on the side you are taking PLUS 1.25mm on the side the other wingrail is taking. That is as an absolute minimum 2.5mm assuming the tip of your vee is razor blade sharp.

 

But in this case there are 2 wheels and two treads involved , not one. You have {1.25mm + thickness of Vee on one side - and strictly this should also be "plus check clearance"}. And on the other side you have {1.25mm - thickness of flange} set against the width of the tread on the other wheel .

 

To make it clear what I am driving at - imagine 2 wheels, both 2.75mm wide . One has a flange 1.25mm wide , leaving 1.5mm tread. The second has a flange 0.5mm wide leaving a tread of 2.25mm. The first will certainly drop into a Vee with 1.25mm flangeways. The second wheel won't

 

I would go further than Martin:

 

Romford/Markits wheels are exactly that, 2.5mm wide, so border-line for smooth running on 00-BF track.

 

I would say Romfords are actually the wrong side of the borderline, by a small margin. The tread is too narrow. That was the failing with the BRMSB standards - the wheels were a bit too fine for the track, although the check rail did operate properly . However as Martin points out, you won't get drop in with RP25-110 wheels running on OO track with 1.25mm flangeway, and the check rail will operate.

 

When I need replacement wagon or coach wheels I use the Hornby packs , checked at 14.5mm B2B with a gauge - not only are they significantly cheaper than Romfords but they should fit the track better. However I admit I don't go to the lengths of replacing Romford wheels that come with Parkside kits - I use what's in the packet

[Ravenser]

What Jim is illustrating is that if you have consistent track and wheel standards there is no drop-in even on very shallow angles.. You shouldn't have drop-in at all if you use a width of wheel to match the chosen flangeway. As shown above most wheels don't satisfy this with Peco flangeways. In this case though you really want to improve the flangeway otherwise the wheels end up rediculously wide for todays standards.

 

You shouldn't really just fix the checkrails, the wing rails should be closer to the vee as well, the idea is to be consistent or it wont really fix it. If you close just the check rail up then surely the other wheel moves into the gap more if you don't close up the wing rail?

 

The other wheel will be held back from the Vee and the gap by the proper check clearance - it cannot "move more into the gap" when it is being held further across.

 

But yes you'll still get drop in.

 

In principle , yes you should narrow the flangeway at the Vee/wing rail. In practice I know 2 ways of narrowing the check rail and none of narrowing the flangeway. Therefore you're stuck.....

 

Any practical proposals gratefully recieved - but in the absence of a method to do it, there's no point telling folk they should do this

[Guest jim s-w]

Jim:

 

Surely the critical dimension here is the wheel tread, not the overall thickness of the wheel? The thickness/thinness of the flange is irrelevant to whether there is enough wheel tread to bridge the flangeway at the crossing

 

Not at all no.

 

The 2 wing rails work on BOTH SIDES of the wheel. one wing rail is bearing against the back of the wheel so the flange width needs to be considered. The absolute minimum gap at the vee is 2.5mm. That is between 1 wing rail and the other. Or one side of the wheel and the other.

 

 

It does make sense when you think about it.

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[Guest jim s-w]

 

Any practical proposals gratefully received - but in the absence of a method to do it, there's no point telling folk they should do this

 

There is only 1 practical proposal Rav

 

That is use consistent standards throughout that are matched to each other. P4 works because its designed to work as a system. OO (NRMA standards) works because its designed to work as a system. If you are going to use OO track then you need to use the correct wheels for that track standard. If you use a narrower wheel (for the sake of appearance say) it wont work. If you want better looking stock then you HAVE to use a standard for your track that matches your wheel profile. Be that OO-SF, 2mm fine, EM, P4, S7 it doesn't matter.

 

I am not telling anyone they should do anything but this is how the vee works - I used a long P4 crossing to illustrate it as I didn't have access to a real one. If you get stock bumping through your Vee you now know why. If you want to build long crossings you will need to us a proper standard for all wheels and track. (that can be OO with wide wheels)

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[Ravenser]

There is only 1 practical proposal Rav

 

That is use consistent standards throughout that are matched to each other. P4 works because its designed to work as a system. OO (NRMA standards) works because its designed to work as a system. If you are going to use OO track then you need to use the correct wheels for that track standard. If you use a narrower wheel (for the sake of appearance say) it wont work. If you want better looking stock then you HAVE to use a standard for your track that matches your wheel profile. Be that OO-SF, 2mm fine, EM, P4, S7 it doesn't matter.

 

I am not telling anyone they should do anything but this is how the vee works - I used a long P4 crossing to illustrate it as I didn't have access to a real one. If you get stock bumping through your Vee you now know why. If you want to build long crossings you will need to us a proper standard for all wheels and track. (that can be OO with wide wheels)

 

Cheers

 

Jim

 

Agreed , track handbuilt to OO Intermediate will work properly with RP25/110 wheels.

 

However in fairness I was only responding to Craig Walsh's suggestion that I should have said to alter the wing rail on Peco. Something can be done to improve Peco , for finer wheels, but there are things you can't fix .

 

To be blunt , we need Peco to tighten up their flangeways to less than 1.27mm on one of their half dozen or so ranges of 16.5mm track . Yes, that has implications for those who want to run pre 1999 Hornby steamers, but there would still be plenty of versions of 16.5mm track to suit them if one version was tightened up to suit modern wheels. Not to mention the piles of old coarse points available second hand on traders stalls at shows, which would doubtless hang around for a couple of decades.

 

And no that would not fix the sleeper spacing , which is a seperate issue. But tightening up the flangeway would be useful progress

 

At the moment , if you want OO track that properly matches modern RTR , either you build your own , using BRMSB-flangeway gauges - which are reasonably widely available , or if you can't, you buy Marcway

 

I wholeheartedly agree that using EM-1979 wheels (Gibsons/Ultrascale) or RP25/88 wheels on Peco or OO Intermediate track compromises running , and "it looks prettier" is not a sensible reason to do it. Unless you are going to build all your track to OO Fine, then Gibsons and Ultrascales are not desirable in OO (and Tenshodos aren't desirable anyway). However there may be occasions when the only way of rewheeling something is to use Ultrascales and then you're stuck (Anyone trying to upgrade a Triang EM2 for example. Or my little bete noire, the Hornby Pacer)

 

But you will get some improvement in running if you sort out the check rail /check flangeway on Peco. You won't have nailed all the problems - but you will have nailed one of them. I have in mind here anyone trying to build a micro layout using Setrack points and hoping to run Parkside kits on it

 

I don't have a problem on Blacklade - the stock is either modern Bachmann/Hornby wheels or Romfords and the piouint are Marcway - all works fine, and the only running issue is one track at a board joint , in one direction, when the adjacent point is set for oint is set in one direction .(This has nothing to do with trackstandards , merely board alignment and a bit of track that is not perfectly aligned at a joint)

[craigwelsh]

Agreed , track handbuilt to OO Intermediate will work properly with RP25/110 wheels.

 

However in fairness I was only responding to Craig Walsh's suggestion that I should have said to alter the wing rail on Peco. Something can be done to improve Peco , for finer wheels, but there are things you can't fix .

You should have to alter the wing rails to sort all the problems and I didn't want anyone to think otherwise. I do however agree that is can't really be fixed unless you use something like Tillig points instead which I believe are a bit tighter in their standards?

 

If Peco were to sort out their check gauge they would need to do it at the wing rails as well as the check rails. Though if this is any more likely than giving a UK sleepering im not so sure butlets not go there!

 

Hornby set track seems even worse than Peco and they do seem to try and hold the wheel on the flange through the crossing.