Collector's Corner Graham Farish

[Guest spet0114]

 I am surprised to find the tender is a plastic moulding, I always assumed that it too would be diecast.  Was the King tender plastic as well or diecast?

 

Can't say for certain about the King , but the Black 5 had a plastic tender too so I'd reckon it's a good guess that it did!

 

Cheers

Adrian

[Il Grifone]

The dreadful Farish safety valve casing seems to have received attention and the brass tyres certainly suggest Hamblings, as does the surfeit of spokes. Both Hamblings and Romford wheels suffered from this -  possibly because they were originally intended for H0?

 

(I fitted my Wills 1751 with Hamblings wheels. Luckily 16 spokes are correct for these, as also for my Hornby 2721, which has Romfords. )

 

The BR blue was 'Prussian Blue' (Caledonian), I believe, which is what Belgian Marine has*. The exact tonality seems to have varied from dark to light - whether due to original painting or fading I don't know.

Rumour has it that three Polmadie Duchesses received actual Caledonian paint which was still in stores. They were then told to repaint them the standard darker blue... (A book I had as a child showed one in a lighter tone!)

 

* To my eye anyway - I can't remember ever seeing a loco in blue (apart from CR 123).

Edited November 6, 2013 by Il Grifone

[5050]

The wheels are Hamblings.  I must admit that I hadn't considered this at first - but now it seems quite obvious!  Now I have taken the body from the chassis I've found that the previous owner has fitted wire pickups that bear against the tops of the front and rear drivers.  It is also become clear that 3 hands are required to ensure that the cylinders and slide bars do not become detached from each other - and 4 hands are needed to put them back together!  The cylinders (a one piece moulding) merely rest in a recess in the main chassis casting and the slide bars 'fit' into 'slots' either side of the piston rod hole.

[Evanelpus]

The only tender made by Farish that was metal was the Formo 0-6-0 loco. Even the Hudson had a bakelite tender. The King tender was rather ugly and overscale to accomodate the large Farish motor, also the underframe was the same as the GP5, which was also used for the Spam Can sadly. The lamps and bell appeared on the King George V, however I have a blue King John with bell and lamps as well as a green King Henry. I also have a King George V in black livery, VERY rare.

[5050]

I had a blue King body at one time, in my 'early' adult modelling days (early 70's) when I was full of great ideas about building an extensive GWR network.  I soon realised the shortcomings of the body (straight sided firebox for one!) and it got 'passed on' via our exhibition sales stand.  It didn't have any fittings on it, not even the chimney copper cap so I reckon it might have been one of the 'factory disposals' that happened around 1957/58 via a company called Hutchinson Roe of Bromley.  I'll find an advert in a period magazine (they advertised in MRN and RM I think) and scan it.  They had all sorts of GF stuff on offer including the figures.

 

Who were Hutchinson Roe?

 

The MN tender body has the very early BR unicycling lion facing the front on both sides.  This was discontinued by BR quite quickly I think due to pressure from the College of Heraldry (??) who said lions should always face to the sinister.

Edited November 6, 2013 by 5050

[BernardTPM]

The MN tender body has the very early BR unicycling lion facing the front on both sides.  This was discontinued by BR quite quickly I think due to pressure from the College of Heraldry (??) who said lions should always face to the sinister.

The Left-facing 'problem' only applied to the 1956 device. The previous one wasn't registered with The College of Arms and was used forward facing throughout it's existence.

[5050]

The Left-facing 'problem' only applied to the 1956 device. The previous one wasn't registered with The College of Arms and was used forward facing throughout it's existence.

Ah, well, there you go then.  Thanks for putting me right.

 

A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

 

Sometimes.

[Evanelpus]

 

The Merchant Navy body is 'Belgian Marine' and seems to be a good colour for early BR Blue.  The proportions look good as well.  I am surprised to find the tender is a plastic moulding, I always assumed that it too would be diecast.  Was the King tender plastic as well or diecast?

Hi 5050, here's some photos of some of my farish locos. The green King came from New Zealand. Hopefully you can see the original solid plastic wheels. The blue Spam Can is one of my two models of "Belgium Marine"! These are early models, using the GP5 chassis.

[5050]

Thanks for the photos of the complete locos.  I can see instantly that the King drivers are completely different to mine.  The 'real' ones have a screw head fixing.  Have you ever removed one?  I am wondering how they actually locate on the axle.  Perhaps on a 'D' shape like the ill-fated 'K's ones?  The MN ones though look more like the usual push fit.

 

The name crest on the MN looks to have 'slipped' compared to mine.

 

I was chatting to a guy at Hull Show yesterday who said he has a Prairie and a MN - but he's not sure if they still have the original motors.  I asked if he could bring them along to Wakefield Exhibition at the end of this month.  As the original motors were nominally 2-pole with a sort of 'trembler' mechanism for the brushes, he reckoned they needed a push to get going.

[Evanelpus]

Hi 5050. Yes, you are right. The wheels were quartered using a flat cut into the end of the axle, but unlike the K's wheels, the "D" shape didn't go all the way through the wheel. The outside centre of the wheel was a small countersunk hole in which the screw head fit.

The only difference was the early prairie and Spam Can (as pictured above) which all used the same design of wheel as the GP5, just friction fit onto the shaft.

 

The early BR Spam Cans had the crest much lower, and not as finely detailed as the later crests. I've seen a few oddities as well, like a Brocklebank Line in Southern Green, but with BR cabside numbers. Yet, the tender still had "Southern" on it! This also seems to be limited to the early models. I have a very poor condition body only in this colour scheme, I'll try and post a photo soon.

 

The strange Farish 2-pole motors were the main reason for the failure of OO Farish in my opinion. They have no brushes, relying instead on a pair of switches mounted on an eccentric cam to control the polarity of the wound field. The central core was a large cylindrical magnet which acted like a fly-wheel and made the motors immensely powerful, I've had a GP-5 pulling 23 Tri-ang Mk 1 coaches (no pin-point axles here!) with no hesitation on a friend's layout many years ago. The main problemwas they were so unreliable. The earlier versions in the GP-5 and the Prairie kit used a centrifical clutch which allowed the motor to start spinning before engaging the wheels, this seemed to work OK but the locos did start with an almighty "Clunk"! Later versions of the motor used in the Spam Can, King, Prairie and Hudson depensed with the clutch in favor of a coiled spring, which was supposed to flex a little and help the motor to kick over a little before taking on the load. This design failed miserably as the motors often would sit there and vibrate whilst not actually engaging until a violent toggle of the controller would kick them over (sometimes!) Also, if the loco was running and for some reason lost power, or became derailed, the motor had so much momentum that it would tangle the spring into a knotted mess before the motor came to a stop.

This is why so many Farish locos have been re-motored, they just weren't reliable.

I've included a close -up of the Spam Can crest, you may be able to make out it says "Belgium Marine" rather than "Belgian Marine"! I have never seen a Port Line or Exeter in the earlier version.

[Evanelpus]

....And here's a picture of the Farish motor. Note that this is the early version with the centrifical clutch mounted just after the gearbox. Most Spam Cans had the later arrangement of the coiled spring type clutch. These early Spam Cans are extremely rare.

[Guest spet0114]

Hi Evanelpus,

 

How have you and your extensive collection faired in the 'mazak-rot' stakes?  Have you lost any locos to this problem, or have all the ones that have survived this far proven pretty robust - i.e. if they were going to rot, they'd have rotted by now?

 

Thanks
Adrian

[5050]

Here's the advert by Hutchinson Roe selling off 'all remaining stock' of GF.  Makes yer wanna weep dunnit!  HR don't appear on a Google search so who were they?

 

Oh, BTW, my MN body is actually 'Port Line' now I've looked at it a bit closer.  No numbers on the cab side though.  Perhaps it came from this source!

Edited November 12, 2013 by 5050

[Evanelpus]

How have you and your extensive collection faired in the 'mazak-rot' stakes?  Have you lost any locos to this problem, or have all the ones that have survived this far proven pretty robust - i.e. if they were going to rot, they'd have rotted by now?

Hi spet0114, Farish OO locos did suffer from the dreaded zinc-pest, probably moreso than Tri-ang and Hornby but much the same as Trix. (common casting company perhaps?) There are few locos in my collection that have been completely spared in one way or another. It's strange, but certain parts seem to be more prone to failure than others. GP5's seem to suffer the least with fatigue, although I do have some failed chassis in my spares box and one body showing fatigue, though this is unusual in my experience. The Kings and Spam Cans suffer a lot in the tender gearbox and loco chassis, and the Spam Can trailing truck is also commonly fatigued. Once again I have seen bodies with fatigue, and it is common to see the tender sideframes bent with fatigue, but still usable. The early prairie chassis and gearbox were particularly susceptible, but being a watch repairer, I have access to fine casting equipment and have produced a number of reproduction castings for the tender and prairie gearboxes in silver for myself. I used silver because it is much harder than white metal and once oxidised it looks exactly like the original mazak castings, although a little expensive to produce on a large scale. I have 3 Hudsons and only one shows some fatigue in one side of the tender chassis casting.

I am one who believes that once fatigue has taken hold, it will run its course fairly quickly, and mildly fatigued castings that are over 50 years old have gotten as bad as they will ever get and with careful handling, will not deteriorate further. I have filled the cracks of many Spam Can trailing trucks with araldite and they seem strong and able to take reasonable handling without difficulty. The problems really arise when the castings warp or expand, and chassis are rendered useless when this happens. I have a few "Modern" locos (Lima especially) in my collection that are already showing metal fatigue problems after 20 years!

[Evanelpus]

5050: If you buy yourself a Dapol/Airfix/Kitmaster Battle of Britain kit, a Tri-ang/Hornby version of the Flying Scotsman chassis, and a Tri-ang Winston Churchill (or just the driving wheels!) and a little kit-bashing later, you could have yourself a rather nice working Merchant Navy Port Line! The Scotsman chassis is the corrct wheelbase length for the MN, and gives you a pair of connecting rods too. Here's a nice conversion I saw on eBay recently, pity I missed it!

[Il Grifone]

Here's the advert by Hutchinson Roe selling off 'all remaining stock' of GF.  Makes yer wanna weep dunnit!  HR don't appear on a Google search so who were they?

 

Oh, BTW, my MN body is actually 'Port Line' now I've looked at it a bit closer.  No numbers on the cab side though.  Perhaps it came from this source!

 

They're still expensive! This, reliability problems, lack of dealers* and allergy to train set curves probably sealed their fate.

 

* And poor supplies to those. I only knew of one in Bristol in the fifties, who only seemed to have things now and again - so much so that I though GF had gone bust.

 

"Slashed to £4/3/6" still made the 'WC/MN' more expensive than a Dublo 'Duchess' and the prairie was around the same as Dublo's 2-6-4T (£3/5/-. later reduced to £2/19/6 IIRC).

 

I can't argue with their description of the 'King' however!  "one of the most handsome of all British locos". (4/6d seems expensive for a bell though.)

[Guest spet0114]

Hi spet0114, Farish OO locos did suffer from the dreaded zinc-pest, probably moreso than Tri-ang and Hornby but much the same as Trix. (common casting company perhaps?) There are few locos in my collection that have been completely spared in one way or another. It's strange, but certain parts seem to be more prone to failure than others. GP5's seem to suffer the least with fatigue, although I do have some failed chassis in my spares box and one body showing fatigue, though this is unusual in my experience. The Kings and Spam Cans suffer a lot in the tender gearbox and loco chassis, and the Spam Can trailing truck is also commonly fatigued. Once again I have seen bodies with fatigue, and it is common to see the tender sideframes bent with fatigue, but still usable. The early prairie chassis and gearbox were particularly susceptible, but being a watch repairer, I have access to fine casting equipment and have produced a number of reproduction castings for the tender and prairie gearboxes in silver for myself. I used silver because it is much harder than white metal and once oxidised it looks exactly like the original mazak castings, although a little expensive to produce on a large scale. I have 3 Hudsons and only one shows some fatigue in one side of the tender chassis casting.

I am one who believes that once fatigue has taken hold, it will run its course fairly quickly, and mildly fatigued castings that are over 50 years old have gotten as bad as they will ever get and with careful handling, will not deteriorate further. I have filled the cracks of many Spam Can trailing trucks with araldite and they seem strong and able to take reasonable handling without difficulty. The problems really arise when the castings warp or expand, and chassis are rendered useless when this happens. I have a few "Modern" locos (Lima especially) in my collection that are already showing metal fatigue problems after 20 years!

That's very re-assuring - many thanks!

[Evanelpus]

Il Grifone: Yes, the expense would have been a major inhibitor. Why buy one Farish Loco when you could buy a Dublo set for the same price! Not even mentioning the Hudson which would have sent you back a whopping £9/11! As for Farish agencies, I'm not that knowledgable on the subject. Period promotional infomation suggested that certain retailers in the UK were supposed to be Farish service agents, whether this was actually the case in reality is unknown to me. I do own a (alleged) Farish service agent's spares box that contains a varied assortment of spare parts in cute little stiff card boxes, each with hand-typed labels. The box also contains several obviously used and damaged parts, which suggests to me that it was actually used by someone to do repairs. How many of these went into circulation I'd love to find out.

As for the inability to negotiate curves, I'm not so sure. I guess it would depend on the quality of the trackwork. I've had all manner of Farish locos running on friend's layouts using modern code 100 trackwork without incident. The GP5 with the 23 Tri-ang coaches as mentioned before was of particular note, the only real problem it experienced on that day was it tended to pull the coaches over when going around the tighter curves!

[Evanelpus]

Here's the advert by Hutchinson Roe selling off 'all remaining stock' of GF.  Makes yer wanna weep dunnit!  HR don't appear on a Google search so who were they?

 

 

Hutchinson Roe were one of the MANY sub-companies owned and run by Graham Farish. They seemed to have companies for every facet of their operation! Seems a very "modern" idea by today's standards!

Edited November 13, 2013 by Evanelpus

[roythebus]

Hutchinson Roe seem to use the same address that GF used in Masons Hill Bromley in the early 1960's.

[Il Grifone]

Il Grifone: Yes, the expense would have been a major inhibitor. Why buy one Farish Loco when you could buy a Dublo set for the same price! Not even mentioning the Hudson which would have sent you back a whopping £9/11! As for Farish agencies, I'm not that knowledgable on the subject. Period promotional infomation suggested that certain retailers in the UK were supposed to be Farish service agents, whether this was actually the case in reality is unknown to me. I do own a (alleged) Farish service agent's spares box that contains a varied assortment of spare parts in cute little stiff card boxes, each with hand-typed labels. The box also contains several obviously used and damaged parts, which suggests to me that it was actually used by someone to do repairs. How many of these went into circulation I'd love to find out.

As for the inability to negotiate curves, I'm not so sure. I guess it would depend on the quality of the trackwork. I've had all manner of Farish locos running on friend's layouts using modern code 100 trackwork without incident. The GP5 with the 23 Tri-ang coaches as mentioned before was of particular note, the only real problem it experienced on that day was it tended to pull the coaches over when going around the tighter curves!

 

I don't know about the larger locos, as I only have the Formo 0-6-0, the later 94xx pannier and (most of) a prairie tank. These are quite happy with sharp curves, as are the shorter coaches. The Pullmans certainly aren't though. I suppose the better off target customer had the space for wider radii.

 

In my youth, I motorised a Kitmaster BoB using a Dublo A4 chassis borrowed from my 'Sir Nigel'. A long term project is to do it again properly - I have most of the necessary Dublo/Wrenn parts. It's a pity Dublo made their West Country wheels undersize, but she'll look OK with my other Dublo locos which suffer from the same thing.

[Evanelpus]

Yes, the Pullmans suffered quite a bit with both metal fatigue and cellulose acetate warping. If the bogies didn't fall apart, then the body shrinkage would bow the chassis if the chassis casting didn't expand anyway! Best pullmans to get for operational purposes are the 60's all-plastic ones. The bodies are polystyrene so no warping and the ones with metal bogies are free of fatigue due to less impuities in the casting metal. These pullmans were always rather expensive to get second hand because at the time they were the only ready to run examples of match-board sided stock available. Since the advent of modern image versions, one could wonder if the price may go down?

Edited November 14, 2013 by Evanelpus

[Il Grifone]

Yes, the Pullmans suffered quite a bit with both metal fatigue and cellulose acetate warping. If the bogies didn't fall apart, then the body shrinkage would bow the chassis if the chassis casting didn't expand anyway! Best pullmans to get for operational purposes are the 60's all-plastic ones. The bodies are polystyrene so no warping and the ones with metal bogies are free of fatigue due to less impuities in the casting metal. These pullmans were always rather expensive to get second hand because at the time they were the only ready to run examples of match-board sided stock available. Since the advent of modern image versions, one could wonder if the price may go down?

 

It's usually  the floor casting expanding - it's robust enough to resist any influence from the body, which always curves artistically in the roof*. I have one where the casting has flawed and broken in two. Conversely I have another that has almost vertical ends. Bogies have a habit of breaking the side frames and are usually missing - not that they roll freely anyway.

I do have a later brake third, but it's suffered from enemy action (paint brush and glue).

 

*Not helped by the large lump of plastic left in the centre of the roof by the moulding process.

Edited November 14, 2013 by Il Grifone

[5050]

Hutchinson Roe were one of the MANY sub-companies owned and run by Graham Farish. They seemed to have companies for every facet of their operation! Seems a very "modern" idea by today's standards!

Thanks, that explains a lot.  I hadn't noticed that the address was the same either.  I thought they might have been some local accountants/solicitors winding the company up.

Edited November 14, 2013 by 5050

[sagaguy]

It wasn`t only Graham Farish rolling stock that suffered from die cast floor warping.I had a Peco wonderful wagon kit which i built in the 1960`s & on inspection in the 1980`s,the floor had bent  up into a  banana shaped curve.I was most surprised.I don`t know if i`ve still got it packed away in my HD collection.

 

   Ray.

Edited November 14, 2013 by sagaguy