Jump to content

Info on old '00' GWR King

Recommended Posts

Can anybody help me with information on this old '00' gauge die-cast King loco. I asked a similar question a while ago but can't find the thread via the search functions. It could have been on the old RMweb.

I recall that it was identified as a early Graham Farish item. It's marked underneath the body with the legend "Made in Britain" but no Farish markings.


If that assumption is correct, does anybody know any relative dates of production?


There is a fair few things 'wrong' with it. Horrible chimney, various undernourished bits and pieces like outside steam pipes and an undersize safety valve bonnet. I've checked it against the Beattie drawings and it appears to be 1mm too short, front and and the same at the back. There seems to a difference in length of the boiler and the wheelbase between the first and second driving axles, otherwise it doesn't look too 'out of shape'.


The other puzzle is the chassis which seems to be made from thick brass. It is fitted with Romford drivers and the valve gear looks 'non production' to me.


I would be very grateful for any help with info. Apologies to all for asking about this twice. :scratchhead:







Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a Graham Farish of approx 1952 vintage (I have an old Modeller with a Farish ad from that year). The chassis is not GF and is probably scratch built using the original Farish bogie and cylinders (but not slidebars). When introduced the Farish had the motor in the tender with drive shaft complete with UV joint to the loco. The original tender was the Farish black five tender complete with LMS style sideframes with a GW Collett style body, that was way too short. I still run a Farish body on a Jameson chassis. The firebox has been ground down and safety valve replaced based on a series of articles in the 1950's by Ken Northwood of Torryford fame. Later Farish King bodies had a pair of lamps rivetted to the running plate. There was also an unrebuilt Merchant Navy, using the same mechanisms, in the range.




Mike Wiltshire

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Farish giveaway is the two part safety valve casing. She was available from around 1950/1 - 55 (possibly the production run was shorter) and came in blue :no2: and green. She was powered by a strange motor (to get around stupid Government restrictions) in the tender driving through u/j and shafting to the driving wheels. This was reluctant to start but unstoppable once going, or so I understand. Various names but all numbered 6000 A version was available with the bell (at extra cost) as KGV.


The range started with a black 5 (1949?) and comprised a Merchant Navy (slightly short and nearer a WC/BB I gather), a GWR prarie, the King and a NYC 'Hudson. In 3 rail there was an 0-6-0 labelled FORMO where the number should be. This was obviously intended to be an SR Class Q, but not described as such. The last two had Pitmann motors. There was also a range of wagons and coaches. All heavy and not free running. The replacement chassis is clearly an attempt to dispense with the eccentric drive system and a Dublo tender would be a distinct improvement.


The need for large radius curves (minimum 2 feet IIRC), strange motors and high prices, coupled with a tedency to warp and develop Mazak disease, ensured the demise of the range by the mid fifties. It was relaunched in the sixties with the prarie (81xx) and a 94xx pannier tank. I have one of the latter and she is a delighfully smooth performer thanks to her 5-pole motor.

Edited by Il Grifone
Link to post
Share on other sites

Also thanks to you David.


Bingo! The tender turned up in the bottom of the box along with another oddity. http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/50495-mystery-gw-14xx/page__pid__582414&do=findComment&comment=582414 I see what is meant about the short wheelbase and the awful motor/drive etc.. There was also a scratchbuilt (?) tender with a rubbishy chassis (wheels don't line up with axleboxes!) but the body is quite good. Mounted on a Comet chassis I think that it would pass muster.





Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.