Hornby loco-drive King

[BSG75]

Hi All,

 

Sorry for the subjective question - but what are people's opions about the current loco-drive King from Hornby ?

 

Cheers !!!

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Simply, this is what is on offer if a RTR OO King is what you require. By a long chalk not the best item in Hornby's steam range, but capable of improvement. So, if you want one right now, that's it.

 

Hornby are steadily renewing their range and especially the larger express types. Compare the gain between their old Castle and the current model, and project that onto the 'all-new tooling' King that doubtless will appear in a few years time. (General thought is that Hornby won't want to introduce two premium price and quality GWR express locos too close together, effectively internal competition.) Precedent suggests that waiting will enable you to purchase a significantly better model.

 

 

[OldSutt]

Having both the old Hornby and Lima tender driven King, there is not a lot of difference in pulling power and perform adequately, despite their age.

However my old Spud 1 (K. Edward I) is not is not so good looking as the Lima KGV. Presumably the latter Hornby Kings are in turn better aethetically. They all suffer from the dreaded traction tyre syndrome.

As previously mentioned, it depends on wether you want something now and reasonably cheap or are prepared to wait for a more expensive and more detailed King in the future.

When Tintagel Castle does arrive, I shall have to decide on which King should go to that great Auction House in the sky.

[spamcan61]

Does the current loco drive Hornby King have traction tyres? I can't see any on the service sheet:-

 

http://static.Hornby.com/files/ss-260c-233.pdf

 

Presumably the body moulding is still pretty much the old tender drive one though.

[Adrian Wintle]

The current loco-drive King does not have traction tires. It looks mostly like a King and it runs quite well. Mine are quite happy with 10+ coaches on the flat.

 

The initial releases had a fairly softly sprung rear driving axle that caused a lot of waddling. Later versions got rid of the 'feature' and run better. Softly springing the front bogie helps the running a bit (and reduces the noise over points), but isn't really necessary.

 

Adrian

[Gilwell Park]

Hi. The latest loco drive King is not all that bad. Not as good as the latest Castle but better than the ex Airfix/Dapol version. It does not have the same body as the previous tender drive version, it is much improved. The worst feature is the dummy drive to the front of the outside cylinder valves and the representation of the frames above the front bogie. From normal viewing distance it looks the part and runs well. I always make a point of not buying anything expensive from Hornby at this time of year, just in case a better version is announced at Christmas. If nothing better is announced the current version is fine.

 

Roger

[7013]

Got caught like that Roger, I had been waiting for 'Bristol Castle' for ages from Hornby. They announced one with 5 pole motor but still the old body, I was still very happy and bought one. imagine my chagrin when they announced a completely new tooled model shortly afterwards. Thankfully I have converted one of the new models to Bristol Castle and my old BC is now 'Spitfire' So I will refrain from buying any unretooled King if Hornby announce one for 2011

[simplex]

I have a Hornby loco-drive King and I am happy with it. It runs very well, easily pulling twelve MK1s. As for the looks it doesn't have the "wow factor" of some models (cant quite put my finger on why) but overall it is a good loco. Also they pop up from time to time at well discounted prices.

[rprodgers]

To my mind it always looks like the body does not sit low enough on the chassis, in addition the safety valve cover is a much cruder effort compared to later models, the tender wheels and the coupling twixt tender and loco is also the old version as used for tender drive.

 

In some ways as it came after the Merchant Navy model it is a curious item it has a new version motor in the loco, finer scale driving wheels, valve gear, well applied livery like the MN but still shows elements of the older Hornby models.

 

The tender and body have been considerably improved, and this shows, but it still leaves you with the impression that this is a transisional model with some extra work to be done by H.

 

R

[Adrock]

I remember buying the older Castle around the time the latest loco-drive King was introduced (possibly around '03?). I compared them both as I couldnt decide which one to buy. From memory, I am fairly certain that the loco-drive King used the tender from the Castle (which wasnt a bad model of the Collett 4,000 gal tender actually), and looking at pictures they look very similar. It certainly isnt the old tender from the tender drive version of the King.

 

For comparison - old King:

http://www.oliviastrains.com/pages/1561/Hornby_King_6010

 

Loco-drive King:

http://www.oliviastrains.com/pages/1560/Hornby_King_6007

 

You can see the extra detail around and below the fallplate on the later-version's tender. The drawbar is also different, and looks to be the same drawbar as used on the previous Castle.

[rprodgers]

To my mind it always looks like the body does not sit low enough on the chassis, in addition the safety valve cover is a much cruder effort compared to later models, the tender wheels and the coupling twixt tender and loco is also the old version as used for tender drive.

 

 

 

Yes correction to what I posted above the tender coupling is not "the old version as used for tender drive" but the tender wheel rims are hideously deep particularly when compared to those on the Hornby Grange.

I still maintain that this is an improved model that some how disappointed after the standard set by the Merchant Navy that was released before.

 

Close to good but annoyingly let down by slight errors that if corrected by H could have "lifted" the level model considerably.

 

Sorry should have looked at my model more closely rather than leaving it in the cabinet

 

R

[Chris Chewter]

Hornbys King William III (R2530) and King William IV (R2234) both have decent can motors in them. They are both DCC ready, if that is also important for you, and I can vouch for the fact that they do NOT have traction tyres, as they both are loco driven.

[Neal Ball]

I am very happy with my King, which was purchased a while ago.

 

I have since converted to DCC and it continues to run very well, although it has an occasional problem with the front bogies causing a short circuit. - It's on the list of this to sort out!

 

Not sure where Hornby could improve it. I would rather see them paying attention to some of the smaller GWR locos they have done. (48xx, or the 61xx)

 

Regards,

[rprodgers]

Decided to place the model against the drawing and photos in Russell and the overall dimensions are not too bad.

 

However the main issues are the end- under nourished front frames above the bogie (presumably to reduce the possibility of short circuits),missing rocker levers, plus the v crude safety valve and old style tender wheels (when compared to the much finer loco wheels- bogie and driving).

 

Nothing that a few detailing parts from Crownline, Springside and Comet cant put right....its just annoyingly close to being good -for the time

 

R

[Barry Ten]

The reversing rod also vanishes into the side of the firebox, rather than the cab, if I remember rightly. I´d need to check a drawing but the cylinders also seem to protrude a long way out on either side, certainly more so than the Comet set. I agree that one of the main visual blemishes is the poor representation of the front frames, difficult to rectify too as the detail is cast into metal. As others have said it appeared a slightly missed opportunity given the strides already shown with other Hornby releases. That said my pair run well and I´m happy enough with them.