ignazw

@Chrissaf OK, fine, no problem. But maybe the blue button shouldn't be there then. After all, hovering over the blue button actually says "reply to". But that's an off-topic discussion.

I agree that cutting standard track is probably the best solution for me. That's fairly straightforward and avoids the bending of flex track so it can be rebuilt multiple times.

Thanks for the Peco suggestion. I could try that. [] I am looking at the Peco tracks, but they are silver-nickle which gives a different colour than the Hornby track. (I use H0m code 70 Peco track for my Bemo Swiss narrow gauge, also silver-nickle.)

Shouldn't I be part of that communication?

Are there any official Hornby representatives on this forum Who could comment?

Thanks for the Peco suggestion. I could try that. Maybe the 41mm bridges the gap. However, this is a Hornby forum, and rules say no non-Hornby commerce. So I'll keep this as a 'last resort.'

I agree with that. I'd rather have it about 56mm. 67mm is too wide, really, and is only appropriate for the track layout if you want double-track curves. So I understand why Hornby chose 67mm.

Thanks for sharing. That looks cool. From the pictures it appears as if your tracks aren't quite equidistant. But that may be image distortion. (On the first picture, the left lines look a bit tighter, whereas on the second picture it seems the reverse.) You have a curve on either end, so you wouldn't face the problem I have. Could you measure the distances between your tracks? I would think that the outer bus stops would be about 50mm apart and the center 67mm?

The "close enough" solution is not close enough. The gap cannot be bridged. What I did notice however, is that you can get them to fit "close enough" if you allow the tracks to be non-parallel: one end 50mm, the other end 67mm. You can do that straining the standard tracks a bit, but they are obviously not parallel. Maybe that's what some users would do, but tracks that are not quite parallel is like a wall frame not hung straight.

I tried this. Two R610 between the point and R628. It brings it to 67mm parallel, but you then need about one and three quarters R610 on the straight. That's really awkward, and cannot be fit with standard track. To me it really looks like a serious error in track geometry. I am surprised no one else on the forum has reported this. It's important enough to inform other potential buyers of express points of these issues. I invested in this but can't use it the way I want. So if Hornby is going to fix this, I volunteer to receive the corrected pieces. Of course, with flex track you can fit anything, but that's not the point here. Our track is not (yet) fixed. Still trying out different lay-outs although we are homing in. The track is built and rebuilt occasionally. I do the track, my 13-year old son manages the trains. Together we started landscaping a bit. Lots to do over the next years.

On the back of the track it really says R628 Hornby Made in China. I checked all that. (I'll just answer one of your shots if you don't mind. :-) )

Please folks, don't give me an answer that I should use flex tracks. That's beside the point. I would appreciate options towards a solution and why that option would be the best solution. At the same time, it should serve as a precaution for other modellers who want to use the express points instead of the standard points. Know your pitfalls. I am sure other modellers have encountered similar problems with the express points. I can't believe I am the first one. How did you solve it? And why did you choose that option? Pros, cons? Thanks for valuable comments.

We have different glasses. I am glad you don't see the problem.

I am glad you are happy flexi.

Thanks for the verification and confirmation. Adding a pair of points at the other end is no option due to space. And it looks silly, too... Engine shed and fiddle yard is on one end only.