GWR 'Loriot Y'

[gwrrob]

On 06/06/2022 at 18:03, 57xx said:

 

How much does it weigh?

 

Only 26 grams @57xx

[AY Mod]

55 minutes ago, paul-dereham said:

 

Thanks, so not exactly to NEM standards then?  

 

 

It simply can't be given the axle position.

[Wickham Green too]

27 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

It simply can't be given the axle position.

Absolutely no consideration for future modellers, them guys at Swindon ! 🙃

[rapidoandy]

1 hour ago, paul-dereham said:

 

Thanks, so not exactly to NEM standards then?  

 

It does meet NEM standards - read on to find out more…

 

*Most* modellers seem to think there is just one standard - the one that Kadees plug straight into with the NEM pocket and two pronged fitting. This is in-fact just part of the NEM standards - namely NEM 362.

 

However this does not fit every installation - on the Loriot it would be in the axle so as you can imagine we have to do something different.

 

This is where NEM 363 comes in. This part of the standard is for installations where space is restricted - and the Loriot and several other things we have fully meet this standard.

 

The problem for Kadee users is the fact that Kadee don’t make a NEM 363 compatible coupler.  We have tried to persuade them to make one…

 

We try to meet laid down standards and have done so with the Loriot. If we had done something non-standard we would likely open ourselves up for lots of other problems.

 

Hopefully that helps

 

Andy

[57xx]

2 hours ago, gwrrob said:

 

Only 26 grams @57xx

 

Not bad, only 4 gms off the 30g I usually aim for when kit building. Once loaded it should be nicely weighted.

[57xx]

2 hours ago, rapidoandy said:

*Most* modellers seem to think there is just one standard - the one that Kadees plug straight into with the NEM pocket and two pronged fitting. This is in-fact just part of the NEM standards - namely NEM 362.

 

I've noticed this too. Quite ironic given that Kadees aren't an official NEM standard coupler, thems be NEM 360 for OO.

[Bucoops]

10 hours ago, 57xx said:

 

I've noticed this too. Quite ironic given that Kadees aren't an official NEM standard coupler, thems be NEM 360 for OO.

 

Apologies if I've misunderstood, but Kadee don't claim to be NEM360 compliant - that covers the actual coupling - they are compliant with NEM362 the standard pocket for HO scale.

[gwrrob]

21 hours ago, gwrrob said:

 

Not easy. You need to gently prise them out with a small flat screwdriver. You will need a replacement socket [X6354] with your chosen Kadee in, even No17 will too long. You might want to cut the socket in half to reduce the standout and superglue the coupling in.

 

After trimming both the socket and the Hunt ultra close coupling we get this.

 

[Dominion]

Thanks GWRRob, very helpful illustration.

Do you think that small cross head screw in your image holds the dove tail socket in place on the wagon ? I am wondering if that might be used as an easy and reversible mounting point.

Tom

[gwrrob]

2 hours ago, Dominion said:

Thanks GWRRob, very helpful illustration.

Do you think that small cross head screw in your image holds the dove tail socket in place on the wagon ? I am wondering if that might be used as an easy and reversible mounting point.

Tom

 

Not sure it is @Dominion

[cctransuk]

3 hours ago, Dominion said:

Thanks GWRRob, very helpful illustration.

Do you think that small cross head screw in your image holds the dove tail socket in place on the wagon ? I am wondering if that might be used as an easy and reversible mounting point.

Tom

 

Looking closely at the photo, I can see what appears to be an extension of the coupling socket base, between the axle and the chassis end casting fixture.

 

I'd guess that the coupling socket base is under the chassis end casting, both fixed with the one screw.

 

CJI.

[Dominion]

Yes thanks, that is my current guess too. I have one on the way to Canada so I will find out soon enough.

[Dominion]

John, your and my hunch was correct. The screw does hold a plate molded with several of the end details in place with the NEM dove tail socket between it and the rest of the wagon.

One end of the molding was glued to the  bottom of the wagon's side plate but the joint freed up with a little rocking persuasion from tweezers.

Tom

[Dominion]

Here is a Kadee 19 fitted roughly in position.

It is temporarily held by a longer screw fitted in the existing hole, just gently clamping the tail of the Kadee.

I could add another screw through the NEM shank of the Kadee and into my plastic spacer to take more load through the coupling than relying on a friction fit on the tail.

However I may be able to use a thinner spacer and one of the more North American style kadees designed for pockets with a central screw.

 

[Dominion]

I changed my approach and prefer this solution.

The L-shaped white "bracket" takes the place of the original Rapido NEM socket. (made from short lengths of 6.2 x 2 mm and 1.6 x 3.5 mm Evergreen strip bonded together)

The bracket is sandwiched in place by the end molding and the original Rapido screw, like the original was.

In the replacement bracket I tapped a small hole for a number 80 screw as they happen to be available here in Canada and as I have a tap for that size. 

Then a 3/8th long screw holds the kadee in a regular kadee draft box.

The coupling is a 141, (long under-set).

screw.

Tom

Edited July 20, 2023 by Dominion
Added dimensions

[kingmender]

9 hours ago, Dominion said:

I changed my approach and prefer this solution.

The L-shaped white "bracket" takes the place of the original Rapido NEM socket. (made from short lengths of 6.2 x 2 mm and 1.6 x 3.5 mm Evergreen strip bonded together)

The bracket is sandwiched in place by the end molding and the original Rapido screw, like the original was.

In the replacement bracket I tapped a small hole for a number 80 screw as they happen to be available here in Canada and as I have a tap for that size. 

Then a 3/8th long screw holds the kadee in a regular kadee draft box.

The coupling is a 141, (long under-set).

screw.

Tom

Thanks Tom - I'll do likewise. A simple (and reversible) solution

Rodger

[The Fatadder]

Received mine today, first impressions are a very nice model 

 

I did find the couplings very frustrating, I didnt realise that you had to remove the separate part with the brake bits in order to remove the coupling (resulting in minor damage to one of the linkages).  Not the end of the world, but frustrating none the less.  Its a shame that a separate part for a fully detailed end part (with the missing linkage) couldnt be included for customer fitting for those who dont use hideous couplings. 

 

Once I had worked out the part was removeable it was good to see that the NEM pocket could also easily be removed.   I am now going to replace the broken linkage / add the missing ones from brass rod before cracking on with some weathering.  It will of course also be getting some new couplings (although I havent decided if it will need to fit in the centre of a rake or be shuntable which will influence the choice) 

[cctransuk]

1 minute ago, The Fatadder said:

Received mine today, first impressions are a very nice model 

 

I did find the couplings very frustrating, I didnt realise that you had to remove the separate part with the brake bits in order to remove the coupling (resulting in minor damage to one of the linkages).  Not the end of the world, but frustrating none the less.  Its a shame that a separate part for a fully detailed end part (with the missing linkage) couldnt be included for customer fitting for those who dont use hideous couplings. 

 

Once I had worked out the part was removeable it was good to see that the NEM pocket could also easily be removed.   I am now going to replace the broken linkage / add the missing ones from brass rod before cracking on with some weathering.  It will of course also be getting some new couplings (although I havent decided if it will need to fit in the centre of a rake or be shuntable which will influence the choice) 

 

There is discussion upthread regarding removal of the brakegear component in order to access the coupling mount.

 

CJI.

[rapidoTom]

1 hour ago, The Fatadder said:

Received mine today, first impressions are a very nice model 

 

I did find the couplings very frustrating, I didnt realise that you had to remove the separate part with the brake bits in order to remove the coupling (resulting in minor damage to one of the linkages).  Not the end of the world, but frustrating none the less.  Its a shame that a separate part for a fully detailed end part (with the missing linkage) couldnt be included for customer fitting for those who dont use hideous couplings. 

 

Once I had worked out the part was removeable it was good to see that the NEM pocket could also easily be removed.   I am now going to replace the broken linkage / add the missing ones from brass rod before cracking on with some weathering.  It will of course also be getting some new couplings (although I havent decided if it will need to fit in the centre of a rake or be shuntable which will influence the choice) 

 

Glad to hear you like it!

 

The GWR like to make our lives complicated - there's so much brake gear in that area and we have to try and settle on relatively few parts to keep the cost down. A replacement part with more linkage detail wasn't really practical in this instance given the relatively small proportion of people who replace tension locks. However, we do like to try and help people who do replace them, hence making the coupling mount block removable - we try and put this feature on many of our wagons, lots of them also have linkages or other detail underneath the blocks for those who like to use various alternative couplings. 

 

Regarding your new choice of couplings - the prototypes were marked (at least in GW days) to be marshalled as close to the end of a train as possible, and and to have "GREAT CARE TAKEN IN SHUNTING" (their caps, not mine!) - hope that helps.

[Wickham Green too]

2 hours ago, rapidoTom said:

... to be marshalled as close to the end of a train as possible, ...

Which, of course, doesn't mean you can save a coupling by putting them one on the end - as it would have to be within the brake van.

[The Johnster]

Yes, because these wagons were never fitted with automatic brakes, so had to have a brake van behind them even post-1969 when fully fitted trains did not need brake vans and the guard rode on the locomotive.  This is why unfitted wagons are never given lamp brackets (but the shape of the BR standard tail lamp, the handle loop narrower at the top, is so that the lamp can be placed on a drawhook and held steadily).  Fully fitted trains with piped brake vans were allowed to have four braked axles behind the brake vans, and on some of the express goods services where fairly high speeds were required the guards marshalled the trains in this way because it steadied the ride of the brake van.

 

I do not know the reason for the 'care in shunting' notice; the wagons were quite robust and rode reasonably well.

Edited July 21, 2023 by The Johnster

[Phil Bullock]

Thinking about likely train formations late 60s early 70s …. 

 

if loaded with a tracked excavator eg Drott am thinking of it accompanying either a train of empty Grampuses going out on a job or loaded ones returning …. 
 

Can’t see any other option than the Langley models Drott…

 

Or may be this Track lifting train … although those look more like lowmacs and I can’t see what they are loaded with.,.,
 

Edited July 21, 2023 by Phil Bullock

[The Stationmaster]

4 hours ago, Phil Bullock said:

Thinking about likely train formations late 60s early 70s …. 

 

if loaded with a tracked excavator eg Drott am thinking of it accompanying either a train of empty Grampuses going out on a job or loaded ones returning …. 
 

Can’t see any other option than the Langley models Drott…

 

Or may be this Track lifting train … although those look more like lowmacs and I can’t see what they are loaded with.,.,
 

The trains they were used with when carrying Traxcavators almost invariably included empty Grampus or other wagons with other stuff for use on a possession.  What normally happened from what I w saw on possessions was that the Traxies were put in first and unloaded - usually several on a job because of the amount of work involved.  Then the Grampuses (Grampi if you're into Latin) were shunted alongside them so that each machine  had a number of empties to load.

 

After the site had been taken down to required depth and levelled the Traxies were usually reloaded and taken away unless they were required to shift and level the sand being used for blanketing (when the formation was poor or deep ballasting was intended for cwr).  If side tipping wagons (Mermaids) were used to unload bottom ballast the Traxies would also level that,  But in simpler relaying jobs they would just clear and level the old ballast and then be reloaded before the new track sections were put in place.

 

Usually after lines were closed the track was removed by various means and theh ballast was often left in situ because there was a cost to removing and tipping it.  So the contractor presumably sold it off separately if they had a local market for it.

 

I suspect the 'Great care in shunting' probably had something to do with the ease with which they could be derailed or the loads they carried (or both).  But as the load would be covered by a 'Shunt With Care' wagon label I think it was more likely something to do with the vehicle itself and that also led to any sort of marshalling iInstruction.  So your idea would be spot on for a small job.

 

The Loriot was - as already discussed above, piped in theh1980s to allow its continued use after the WR went over to fully fitted working for all trains (with one particular exception).  There was no requirement to marshal it next to the brakevan - the painted Instruction simply said 'in the rear of the train'  (so neither at the rear of the train nor adjacent to the brakevan)  - possibly because of drawbar considerations or some concern about stbility if it was marshalled ahead of heavily loaded vehicles.

[The Johnster]

If grampi is the plural of grampus, should not the singula be grampo, as in scampi/scampo.  Asking for a friend.  And as the plural of roof is rooves, why is not the singular of eaves eaf?

[cctransuk]

55 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

If grampi is the plural of grampus, should not the singula be grampo, as in scampi/scampo.  Asking for a friend.  And as the plural of roof is rooves, why is not the singular of eaves eaf?

 

'Cos it's English - none of yer Continental obeying grammatical rules r'and 'ere, mate!

 

CJI.