Hornby king

[Forester]

Rob's picture reminds me why I have never had a King (RTR or kit) that really satisfied.

 

It's that bogie.

 

No, not the rivets and frames and springs, but the way it sits on the model.

Or rather, the way the model never seems to sit on it.

 

To produce a really nice King that daylight has to be eliminated.

To do that might require the very opposite of what the rivet counters demand - maybe a bit of non-prototypical trickery (well a mm perhaps) around the frames to produce a model that looks right on the track with no daylight.

 

OK Hornby. Put your heads together, find a fix for the bogie and make it a brilliant model.

[robmcg]

I totally agree the front bogie is the Achilles heel of models of the Kings and even Castles and Stars to a lesser extent.

 

The front cylinder undersides need to be either modelled or hinted-at with some kind of blanking card or plastic to stop light penetrating what was/is a rather opaque area of the prototypes with inside cylinders and motion. And bogie detail and front frame arch closer to scale would be nice, and is nice DIY modification. The GW 4-cyl Castle and Star models aren't too bad but the King is a bit tragic in this area.

 

I wonder what Dave will do to give a good look to his versions?

[7013]

I am sticking with my DJM/Hattons pre order. Comparing the two specs I think that Hattons will produce the King I personally am looking for. I know the 5 pole motor is good but I believe the corless will be more powerful and the extra weight promised will mean a King with more grunt. I suppose the point I am trying to make is that both Kings appear individual enough to satisfy most modellers. But this is idle speculation, of course the sensible thing to do is wait and see both models, but by keeping my pre order I will at least be able to buy one.

[JSpencer]

Coreless won't buy more power. It just reduces the noise the model makes and lasts longer.

 

Size for size the coreless motors are lighter can accelerate and stop faster as they have no Iron mass to spin round. That is important for an RC aircraft but not for a model loco. Indeed the flywheel effect of a classic iron core motor is an advantage for a model railway loco.

 

The Hornby 5 pole is hard to beat and is probably equal to any coreless of the same size in all but acceleration.

[Miss Prism]

Anyone know when 6000 had her steam pipes modified?

 

Single to double chimney changes are recorded, but I am not aware of a date listing of the steampipe changes. Generally, the steampipe change (1953/4?) was slightly before the big blastpipe and chimney mods of 1955 onward. I think any loco with a double chimney had by then acquired the later form of steampipe.

 

 

[Ian Hargrave]

This topic is a fair reflection on where this client group (for such we are) is headed.Less than two months ago,many on this forum were throwing up their hands in horror at what they saw as unacceptably high demands on their collective pockets.We were told that if we wanted the bar of quality to be kept high it would cost more.
Well,here we are,looking now at £150 a throw .We seem to have returned to a premium quality.Let us all rejoice in that..What then of the doomsday soothsayers who won't pay....or so they say ?

The silence is deafening.It hasn't taken us long to adapt to changed circumstances.Lead us Lord into temptation.....

Edited September 9, 2014 by Ian Hargrave

[Miss Prism]

A King bogie, and its relationship to the loco frame, are always going to look a bit absurd in 00.

[The Stationmaster]

Looking for clues for the livery for the STEAM KGV from the CAD's ... bell, single chimney, modified outside steam pipes.  So definitely 6000, but not as originally built (due to the modified steam pipes) and not as preserved (as has it currently a double chimney which was fitted in 1956). Anyone know when 6000 had her steam pipes modified?

We won't know the answer until Saturday (I presume).  Clearly the design is very much like the 'Castle' with the ability to add components to suit whatever it is portraying.  

 

The steam pipes on 6000 probably changed when the cylinders were renewed and in most (all?) cases such changes appear to have predated the arrival of double chimneys.

[Horsetan]

...What then of the doomsday soothsayers who won't pay....

They are the ones who never pay anyway.

[The Stationmaster]

By "Swindon" do you mean "Steam"?

Rather obvious I would have thought (as there's not much else there nowadays) - however it might well go beyond that to whoever might have been involved as I believe, from what I was told a couple of years ago, that Steam has several folk it can call on.

[robmcg]

This topic is a fair reflection on where this client group (for such we are) is headed.Less than two months ago,many on this forum we throwing up their hands in horror at what they saw as unacceptably high demands on their collective pockets.We were told that if we wanted the bar of quality to be kept high it would cost more.

Well,here we are,looking now at £150 a throw .We seem to have returned to a premium quality.Let us all rejoice in that..What then of the doomsday soothsayers who won't pay....or so they say ?

 

The silence is deafening.It hasn't taken us long to adapt to changed circumstances.Lead us Lord into temptation.....

 

Curiously I have been enjoying two rather nice models at £62 and £47 respectively (I'm outside-EU) and they are both from Hornby and both are marvellous.  The RR P2 lacks some paint but is otherwise just wonderful, and the impulse £47 purchase of a King was partly because everyone was saying how bad the odel was, when a bit of DIY work can tidy up the front bogie frame area, as I will demonstrate soon, and its paint is as good as any I have seen in the last ten years and better than most. 

 

There will be a lot of good models for those who look, methinks, and a £150 model of a definitive engine like the King, when well-detailed and attractive, well, it would be a fair price certainly. I'm hoping for better frames/bogie front end, mostly. Then name-number changes can be done, with suitable provenance.... 

 

I await GWR pre-war carriages with impatience!      Oh, no, wait, I have those old Hornby models with and without clerestory roofs.... 

 

meanwhile, how many more angles on a CotN can I devise?

 

What a sad, sad, hobby..   Not.

 

Cheers,

 

Rob

 

typo edit

Edited September 8, 2014 by robmcg

[QuoitsPlayer]

I totally agree the front bogie is the Achilles heel of models of the Kings and even Castles and Stars to a lesser extent.

 

The front cylinder undersides need to be either modelled or hinted-at with some kind of blanking card or plastic to stop light penetrating what was/is a rather opaque area of the prototypes with inside cylinders and motion. And bogie detail and front frame arch closer to scale would be nice, and is nice DIY modification.

 

I'm wondering if the above is what Hornby are referring to in the specification when they say "Various internal cylinder covers" 

[robmcg]

Blank plates where light shines through in the area of inside cylinders and motion?   Makes sense to me. Short of fully-modelled cylinders, which would foul the bogie for type 2/3 curves.

[The Stationmaster]

 

Single to double chimney changes are recorded, but I am not aware of a date listing of the steampipe changes. Generally, the steampipe change (1953/4?) was slightly before the big blastpipe and chimney mods of 1955 onward. I think any loco with a double chimney had by then acquired the later form of steampipe.

 

The problem is 'which double chimney?'.  It appears that the final type started being fitted in 1958 but what is not clear from any information I have found thus far is whether the early type was replaced on those engines which had received it.. Some photo captions suggest that is what happened but the only answer is study of dated photos (and being able to tell the two types apart of course).  So Hornby's choice of 6029 for 'final BR condition' poses a slight conundrum as it received the first type of double chimney and ran with it in otherwise 'final' condition, but was that actually the final condition of the engine?

 

I reckon if Irwell could get out a 'Book Of The Kings' in the next 6-12 months they will find it in considerable demand!

[Miss Prism]

I'm wondering if the above is what Hornby are referring to in the specification when they say "Various internal cylinder covers"

No. Hornby is referring to the shape of the above footplate covers for the inside cylinders.

 

[dibber25]

Amid all the euphoria about another choice of models of the same subject I can't help but wonder which manufacturer made a worthwhile profit out of the Standard Class 4 4-6-0 or more recently 10000?

CHRIS LEIGH

[Miss Prism]

The problem is 'which double chimney?'.  It appears that the final type started being fitted in 1958 but what is not clear from any information I have found thus far is whether the early type was replaced on those engines which had received it..

 

A good point, and I can't answer it. The 'final type' had a more pronounced body taper (both in side and end elevation) compared to the initial type. For Hornby's 6022, I guess it will depend on what Hornby mean by 'BR late'.

[Shedmaster83G]

The first Collett 4000 gallon tenders had the two fillers because the water cranes could not reach a central filler, their swing-arm being too low.  Subsequently the water cranes were modified by fitting an additional cranked section, thereby increasing the height of the swing-arm arm,allowing the use of a single central filler.  Hornby Dublo produced their tender as a double filler on their 'Bristol Castle' and subsequent models. The 4000 gallon tenders were first used behind Castles and one was used when 5000 ran trials on the LMS in 1926.

[robmcg]

Amid all the euphoria about another choice of models of the same subject I can't help but wonder which manufacturer made a worthwhile profit out of the Standard Class 4 4-6-0 or more recently 10000?

CHRIS LEIGH

 

Profit?  Profit?  What are you, some kind of capitalist apologist?   I think we definitely need subsidies, after all, the government has lots of money, it can print some more...

 

(sorry, I too wonder about profitability for new models, and wonder about some of the models of the last ten years)

 

I applaud RTR manufacturers and truly appreciate their optimism.

[Coach bogie]

I reckon if Irwell could get out a 'Book Of The Kings' in the next 6-12 months they will find it in considerable demand!

 

Peto's King Register was able to cover all the info I ever required.

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Petos-Register-Western-Railway-Locomotives/dp/B002DIGTG6

 

Mike Wiltshire

[Ozexpatriate]

Amid all the euphoria about another choice of models of the same subject I can't help but wonder which manufacturer made a worthwhile profit out of the Standard Class 4 4-6-0 or more recently 10000?

Chris,

 

that's an interesting question - model duplication inevitably erodes profitability, but how, without collusion, should competitors avoid the 'great minds think alike' problem of model duplication - unless you suggest that someone should voluntarily step aside. If so, who?

 

Perhaps there is a lot more inside gossip available to people inside the industry than punters like me but it all seems like a difficult problem to avoid, particularly with a shrinking pool of 'interesting and predictably profitable' prototypes. 

[newbryford]

 

 

Perhaps there is a lot more inside gossip available to people inside the industry than punters like me but it all seems like a difficult problem to avoid, particularly with a shrinking pool of 'interesting and predictably profitable' prototypes. 

 

It's not just a rapidly shrinking pool of profitable prototypes to consider.

With all these announcements at the moment, there's a rapidly shrinking pool of available production capacity within China. It won't miraculously expand overnight. The knock-on effect will be more delays and the possibility of cancelled projects as one manufacturer or another manages to grab the factory's attention to leap-frog a.n.other model company.............

 

 

Cheers,

Mick

[Horsetan]

Peto's King Register was able to cover all the info I ever required.

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Petos-Register-Western-Railway-Locomotives/dp/B002DIGTG6

Peto's Registers only ever ran to three books. Bill Peto unfortunately died, and those who inherited his copious notes seem to have thought that the effort involved in publishing new works wasn't worth the candle.

 

Shame really, but there you go.

[robmcg]

It's not just a rapidly shrinking pool of profitable prototypes to consider.

With all these announcements at the moment, there's a rapidly shrinking pool of available production capacity within China. It won't miraculously expand overnight. The knock-on effect will be more delays and the possibility of cancelled projects as one manufacturer or another manages to grab the factory's attention to leap-frog a.n.other model company.............

 

 

Cheers,

Mick

 

There are in my opinion a number of prototypes which represent everything good and inspiring about steam age engineering and the diminishing RTR production capacity, if it is indeed diminishing, will find an outlet in many of the best examples of that age, the King, Castle, A4, Duchess, and even the P2 and Bulleid Pacifcs, I could go on,  they will always sell, if well-made, and probably sell even if they have flaws.

 

But then I'm biased towards large powerful express engines....  and like a kid at Christmas with models of them... long may it last!

[dibber25]

Chris,

 

that's an interesting question - model duplication inevitably erodes profitability, but how, without collusion, should competitors avoid the 'great minds think alike' problem of model duplication - unless you suggest that someone should voluntarily step aside. If so, who?

 

Perhaps there is a lot more inside gossip available to people inside the industry than punters like me but it all seems like a difficult problem to avoid, particularly with a shrinking pool of 'interesting and predictably profitable' prototypes. 

I agree. There cannot be collusion. Indeed, I once discussed this with one of the major manufacturers and it was pointed out to me that any discussion over who was going to do what would smack of a cartel and that would be a far worse situation. However, times move on and where we once had only two or three major RTR manufacturers (lets say Hornby/Bachmann/Lima) we now have major (Hornby, Bachmann,) 'middle league' (Heljan, Dapol) and the smaller outfits (RealTrack, plus DJM and Rapido, neither of whom have yet to actually produce anything for the UK market). Whilst the big guys can undoubtedly survive the occasional sales disaster (and may well have done so several times in the past) I'm less and less confident that the present rate of investment in new products is sustainable. I'm absolutely CERTAIN that producing a better front bogie or getting the double chimney exactly right isn't enough advantage to make a serious commercial difference. Tot up the number of promised new locos at a nominal investment (quoted by Rapido) of $100,000 per loco. We must be looking at a cool $2million plus. If I was in the position of facing a duplicate of something I was investing that money in, I wouldn't hesitate to drop it, however much better I thought my model might be. We all love the new announcements, the prospect of a great model of a loco we really like but the hobby as a whole needs to take on board a realistic approach to the commercial angle and a commercial approach to realism.

CHRIS LEIGH

Edited September 9, 2014 by dibber25