Die cast 4mm/00 King.

[Re6/6]

I came across this die-cast King during a clear up.

I remember acquiring it many years ago, but have no idea who manufactured it. The body is die-cast with no maker's name cast in, except a 'Made in England' mark.

The tender is a Hornby Dublo Castle one and the loco chassis looks like it might have been scratch built out of heavy brass section. I can see neatly soldered joints. It looks like the space for the motor might be for a Romford 'Bulldog' or maybe a Pittman.

 

Could it possibly have been a Graham Farish product? It's the only one that I can think of!

 

Thanks.

 

John

[Fat Controller]

Graham Farish certainly did a King at one point- it may even have lasted in production until the late 1960s.

[Il Grifone]

The tender is Hornby Dublo as is the style of the "MADE IN ENGLAND". Is it all one casting as my first thoughts are that there seem to be some parts from a HD Castle casting (eg the cab is more Castle than King) and some possibly from a Farish King? The front bogie has a Farish coupling so presumably this part is Farish. The Farish King had the make's typical split safety valve casing, where part was the body casting and part added on giving a weird effect.

I'll have a look through my old magazines for further info.

 

AFAIK the Farish production was all in the early fifties, though stocks might have lasted longer.

[Colin]

I'd guess at either Hamblings - they made several rtr 00 locos in the immediate postwar period - or possibly Stewart Reidpath - I seem to recall seeing "Essar" cast loco bodies on sale at an exhibition once but it was many years ago - however I don't know what was ever in the range.

[Barry Ten]

It's the Farish one, I think. There's a good pic in the May 2001 issue of Model Rail and it matches the body in a number of specific details, such as the safety valve and the rectangular thing between the first and second splashers. The position of the smokebox handles also matches.

[naugytrax]

The photos are an exact match for a Farish "King Charles" body in my possession, except that mine doesn't say "MADE IN ENGLAND" underneath. In addition to the rectangular boxes under the boiler noted by Barry Ten (possibly to accommodate slidebar supports attached to the chassis?), prominent identifying features include: the shoulders of the firebox are too wide and square, and there are fixing points cast on the boiler and firebox for the name plate.

These models originally had a motor in the (ill-proportioned) tender, powering the center drivers via a cardan shaft. The fact that someone has replaced the tender and the loco chassis is another indication that this was a Farish model!

[bertiedog]

Very definitely a Graham Farish of Bromley body, the rest is other makers bits and pieces, It was made from about 1950 to about 1957, Farish had a fire at Bromley that stopped production of new models in 1955 or so, but continued on existing stocks of parts.

 

I would assume that the wheels are Romford, and maybe the remains of the chassis has been used.

 

It could be improved with re- assembly, but the firebox is the worst low point of the body. Quite why they bodged it so badly, by making it wider than scale and higher could have been explained if the motor was in the locomotive itself, but it was not, the motor was in the tender, a two pole geared unit, that had a clutch to allow starting from rest, or at least if the loco was in perfect condition.

 

Mr Graham Farish Snr's intention was that all the locos would be Pittman motored powered, but the import restrictions in the pre 1953 period stopped the plans, leading to the strange in house built motor, which could be made without breaking the restrictions. He did fit the motor to the US 464 Hudson, and the Formo loco, as these were for export or the toy train trade, and by passed the laws restrictions.

 

Complete as "factory", they are a collectors item, but in this form a bit of a curates egg, and it needs cosmetic attention all over the body to improve it.

Stephen.

[Re6/6]

Many thanks all. As you say Stephen, a bit of a curate's egg!

[hayfield]

Re6/6

 

Nice loco and as said whilst not of value to the avid Farish collector, its a realy nice loco to have in your collection, No idea about the chassis but if it fits the loco then it may well be a Farish, are you going to motorise it? Thanks for showing us it.

[Il Grifone]

For reference, here are the sad remains of a Farish King. Advanced mazak rot is evident. Interestingly this one has a Pittman motor. Presumably US exports were not affected by import restrictions (fitted in the US?) or is she just a late example?

 

http://cgi.ebay.co.u...=item4aa6c91ba8

[Barry Ten]

unless someone has carefully removed the safety valve bonnet, the original Farish component was lower part cast as part of the body, upper part brass turning. If you see one 'in the flesh' this will make more sense!

 

 

 

That's fairly clearly the case in the photos of Re6/6's model - you can see the division line between the body and the upper part.

[bertiedog]

Sorry Gentelemen, I disagree that the body is Farish.

 

The smoke box detailing is too crisp and unless someone has carefully removed the safety valve bonnet, the original Farish component was lower part cast as part of the body, upper part brass turning. If you see one 'in the flesh' this will make more sense!

 

I agree with the view the body is Hornby Dublo.

 

It would have to be a Dublo Castle then, but the Hornby Castle had a different firebox shape, different front fastening, and different cab bottom.

I agree the lettering is in Hornby style, but Graham Farish went through several changes over the production period., from the late 19040's to about 1960.

 

No UK makers apart from Farish made die cast bodies of a King...unless somebody has a JMR cast example, they did make prototypes of several locos whilst making the various items for Castle Arts.(Gaiety). JMR were( and are) die casters to the car industry, and made items for Stewart Reidpath, Gaiety, Hamblings, and many others.

 

The JMR mazak does not suffer from rot in general, but the castings from Farish's Preen and Bromley factories do suffer, if made prior to about 1955. JMR also cast the KMR 440 kit loco, Rowell Pacific, and made diecast parts for Exley coaches.

 

 

Farish were first affected by the Post War Labour Government export only ban on new toy production, brought in in 1945/46, leading to the strange 2 pole motor. They had invested in the two pole motor, and felt it had to be used even after the relaxation of the toy manufacturing ban.

 

They legally imported Pittman for the Formo and US Hudson,(in 1948/49), and having a surplus left over, re-designed the 00 locos still in production during the 1950's to take the Pittman, or an equivalent Trix (Buhler), designed and manufactured motor.

 

 

The other big factor was the major fire at Bromley, about 1955, some moulds were lost, some popular ones replaced, and I think the King locomotive was re-done after the fire, gaining a much better smokebox and cab, which no longer had the cardan shaft drive through it. They did not however slim down the firebox, suggesting the moulds were repaired rather than re-placed.

 

At this point, about 1957 Graham Farish used up the 1940's supplies of Pittman motors, having assembled most into the unsuccessful Formo Train set. Most Hudsons had the Pittman motor, but some had the two pole in the earliest version in 1949.

 

The stored Formo sets were water damaged at Bromley in the fire, and sold en-mass to Gamages of Holborn to clear the stock. Also they cleared out as many of the old OO stock as well, and Kings etc., were cobbled together from whatever parts were to hand.

 

I followed Farish closely as my Grandfather provided all the transport for Mr Graham Farish Snr, and we had examples of all the production at various times. Farish's original business was Electronics and Radio parts, and Patented devices and Chemicals, and the radio parts experience was behind the design of the ingenious 2 Pole motor, that could be made from existing parts and materials, and therefore could be produced during the ban on new toy production for the home market..

 

Hope this helps with identification, it really does look like a Farish King. they did as you see vary over the years. If the body is sound and a one piece die cast body it must be a Farish, if it is two pieces (or more), it could have alterations and additions, but it would be very unusual.to have done this.

 

Stephen.

 

 

[bertiedog]

This shows the Hornby Castle, a quite different body, waisted firebox, wheel spacing etc,

copyright original poster.

[naugytrax]

the body is Hornby Dublo

 

Here's a dead give-away that it's not. The safety-valve bonnet and associated top-feed pipes are in the middle of the third boiler ring on a Castle, as modelled by Hornby-Dublo. On the King they are further back, on the join between the third and fourth rings, as modelled by Farish and shown on the model in question. If you put the two models side-by-side, the Farish model is significantly longer than the Dublo Castle, as it should be. There never was a Hornby-Dublo King!

 

Oops, while I was typing Bertiedog just posted a picture which shows this.

[Il Grifone]

I don't think there's any doubt that the front of the body is Farish. My doubts were with the cab. As I recall, the Farish Kings I've seen have had the number 6000 cast on the cab side, where this one has some rivets, which have required the numberplate to be fitted in the wrong place. The side window on a King is almost square, but this could be Farish's rendition of course (the remains in my link in fact show a rectangular window). That's why I enquired whether it was a single casting, but on reflection it appears all Farish.

 

Farish Kings never were very common (They were rather expensive! ) and that motor gave them a poor reputation. Their tendency to dissolve into powder has made them even rarer (see the link in my last post).

 

The wheels appear to be Romford (the nut is the give away here) and new motion has been made, apparently from bullhead rail as was the practice back then.

 

Sorting out the body ride height of engine and tender would improve the model no end. The odd mixture of BR lining on the engine and GWR on the tender could do with attention too.

[bertiedog]

It is quite possible Farish altered the moulds over time, especially after the damage due to the Factory fire. As stated production numbers were quite low, the prices relatively high, and running qualities very dubious with the two pole motor, unless in pristine condition.

 

Despite rumours and bitter experiences the two pole motor was self starting, ingeniously disconnecting when stopped and naturally rotating to a halt where it would re-start, with a lurch as the clutch re-engages. The switch gear that substitutes for the commutator applies pressure to the cranked end and forces the rotating magnet motor to the start position.

 

Note the rotating magnet, similar to Distler and Coreless motors and very, very advanced for it's day., but if out of adjustment , then hopeless for Model Railway uses.

 

Most of the surviving Farish locos require a push to start them, but attention to the switch gear can completely cure the issue. The current consumption is very low and efficiency is very high, due to the massive size of the coils. Pittman motored versions are completely conventional and run normally, as long as the wheels are still sound., some used very poor Bakelite centres.

 

It may be possible that the cab has been taken from a Castle, but the join would show, it would solder in skilled hands, or epoxy glued in later days, but that cab looks original to me. with lack of steps and generally too low.

 

The body can be corrected a lot if the firebox sides are machined out on a mill, or filed out, and body filler used to form a new firebox casing, this was done quite often in the 1950's by modellers desperate for a RTR GWR King Class Locomotive.

 

With scale wheels and a full depth chassis, brakes, new steps, and front buffer beam it looks much better, but an enthusiast of the period would rather have a Sayer Chaplin, or Eames kit built model. It was possible to used the Sayer brass etchings as overlays on the Farish to make it more scale, but it still looked odd.

 

In reference to Stewart Reidpath and Hamblings they made absolutely no die cast models in Mazak, only cast lead based whitemetal made in brass and steel dies.

 

JMR did make diecast parts in mazak for the famous Hamblings wheel press for the Wheels that they made till the 1980's. Stewart Reidpath, (Essar) was owned by Hamblings by the 1950's, and the lead castings were a speciality by Essar suited to low production specialist scale items, not mass toy production like Hornby.

 

Farish hovered in a strange area of sales, neither toys , nor scale models, some scale like the Hudson, some like the Formo very inaccurate. Graham Farish were a small company, and the Model Railway production very much the passion of one man, Graham Farish Snr, who thought that he could rival Hornby at one point, but the post war toy restrictions, the fire, bad plastics used in the Pullmans, and his changing interests over the years never allowed the brand to expand.

 

I think they suffered from having no in house designer, using others designs brought in, or like the Hudson, getting it designed in conjunction with Gordon Varney.no single designer would have wandered in standards like Farish did, but I suspect that Farish himself was behind some of the designs.

 

The loco is certainly worth doing up with all the trimmings but do not expect a scale loco, just a good example of a semi scale 1940's locomotive , over 60 years old after all.

 

Stephen.

[bertiedog]

 

I think the above shows the corrections, slight lowering, full frame profile, and rounding the top of the firebox front, getting the wheels in line, and tidying up.

Stephen.