Hornby GWR King - what would it take?

[OnTheBranchline]

What would it take to get a half decent 21st century King model? I guess it's too late now before "Design Clever" takes effect.

[Matabiau]

I suspect the King is on Hornby's list of models to update, although how far down the list I have no idea! As for Design Clever, I suggest we wait and see a few different finished products before passing judgement. If they really have been designed cleverly there should be room to add detail that will doubtless be available from independent suppliers.

[gwrrob]

What would it take to get a half decent 21st century King model?

 

A bomb under it for starters.Then they can start afresh with a blank piece of paper please.Then lets have it in Great Western green not BR blue and we'll be cooking on gas.Put me down for half a dozen quality models but none if its warmed over 70s tat.

[exet1095]

It's not a bad model at all now, as has already been stated in other threads. Look at the sidebars etc... It's not perfect, but looks fine alongside new Castles and Granges. It is not the old 1970s loco.

[gwrrob]

 It's not perfect,

 

I think its overpriced for what it is and should be in the Railroad range alongside the County.Hornby tend to put it out as a limited edition model in sets like the Royal Mail one last year aimed at collectors rather than modellers as they know its limitations too.

 

They have 30 names to choose from unlike the one with a Duke of Gloucester !

 

However its haulage capacity would interest me.

[Neal Ball]

I also have issues with the running quality of my King. (It's not the recent BR Blue!). The front Bogie is metal and kinda hangs in front, on occasions it causes shorts as it goes across points!

 

Whilst clearly I would welcome a new King, firstly, it would be good to see more of the smaller GWR locos. Failing that a King to 2013 standards would be very welcome!

[The Stationmaster]

Talking to SK about it a couple of years ago he agreed that it was 'not the best model in their range' and that it might be something they would have to tackle sometime.  Which meant to me that it might be on their list but it's nowhere near the top but we can hope.  It definitely needs a major revamp in my book but as Neal has already said I would by far prefer to see certain smaller locos first - starting with a 64XX/74XX and then a decent 94XX.

 

MrK did agree also - a couple of years back - that the pannier is also very dated so maybe the 64XX seed I was desperately trying over several years to plant in his mind might germinate there one day.

[Barry Ten]

I think we're stuck with it for now so I've been looking at some simple tweaks to give it a bit more finesse. Here's a one-evening job with some plastikard frame extensions which improves the front end quite a bit:

 

[gwrrob]

Thanks BT .I was trying earlier to remember who did this mod to give a link and it does make the front end better.What the haulage like for this model as I know you built some centenaries for it.

[Barry Ten]

Thanks BT .I was trying earlier to remember who did this mod to give a link and it does make the front end better.What the haulage like for this model as I know you built some centenaries for it.

 

The Centenaries are all just Comet sides on Airfix bodies so not particularly heavy but my King has no trouble with 6 plus a siphon.

[Ozexpatriate]

What would it take to get a half decent 21st century King model? I guess it's too late now before "Design Clever" takes effect.

I suspect the King already conforms to 'design clever' and as such won't rate a redesign anytime soon.

 

Since we can now tick the boxes for Star and 8-coupled tanks, not too mention Cities and Dukdog/Earls it will be interesting to see how GWR locomotives fare in the upcoming MREmag/RMweb poll in a few months.

 

Many people still want a 47xx* and I have long liked Mike's suggestion for a 64xx/74xx (though not the 94xx which I think suffers from the same drawback as the Hawksworth coaches - being that they were introduced rather late, which is lovely for BR/WR but not GWR modellers).

 

Assuming most buyers are not starting from nothing, and want to purchase new today, the greater "need" for GWR modellers is surely smaller locomotives. I think we'll see a steam railmotor before we see a new King (and if so, I'll be very happy about that).

 

* I think people want them 'just because'. Operationally, heavy freight is well served by 28xx / 2884 and soon the 8-coupled tanks too.

[The Stationmaster]

I suspect the King already conforms to 'design clever' and as such won't rate a redesign anytime soon.

 

Since we can now tick the boxes for Star and 8-coupled tanks, not too mention Cities and Dukdog/Earls it will be interesting to see how GWR locomotives fare in the upcoming MREmag/RMweb poll in a few months.

 

Many people still want a 47xx* and I have long liked Mike's suggestion for a 64xx/74xx (though not the 94xx which I think suffers from the same drawback as the Hawksworth coaches - being that they were introduced rather late, which is lovely for BR/WR but not GWR modellers).

 

Assuming most buyers are not starting from nothing, and want to purchase new today, the greater "need" for GWR modellers is surely smaller locomotives. I think we'll see a steam railmotor before we see a new King (and if so, I'll be very happy about that).

 

* I think people want them 'just because'. Operationally, heavy freight is well served by 28xx / 2884 and soon the 8-coupled tanks too.

Agree absolutely.  I know the polls always indicate a fairly strong interest in the 47XX (and it is perhaps the sort of thing which might appeal to Hornby as it is big and came in green etc) but the real need in Hornby's ever burgeoning GWR range is to find a decent replacement for their aged pannier.  Whether I succeeded in planting the seed in SK's brain with my persistent lobbying I really don't know but in theory I think the answer, on way or another, theoretically would become apparent in either 2014 or 2015 judging by what we know of their lead times from decision to release year.

 

My main hope now is indeed to see various smaller classes although I'm not averse to shopping for decent 'Halls' and 'Granges' as my scenario development swings back to the North & West Line.  And as it happens a 47XX wouldn't suit my needs (in fact I sold a quite nicely finished kitbuilt one I acquired at auction almost as soon as I had bought it) and in reality very few layouts would have a need for one - but since when has the word 'need' stopped anyone buying a loco?).  On the other hand a good 94XX would suit me down to the ground - all a matter of where in time the layout 'snapshot' is based of course.

 

In the meanwhile all I would say is keep your fingers crossed, mine are, very firmly.

[Neal Ball]

.......... but as Neal has already said I would by far prefer to see certain smaller locos first - starting with a 64XX/74XX and then a decent 94XX.

 

 

.......  it will be interesting to see how GWR locomotives fare in the upcoming MREmag/RMweb poll in a few months.

 

........... the greater "need" for GWR modellers is surely smaller locomotives. I think we'll see a steam railmotor before we see a new King (and if so, I'll be very happy about that).

 

* I think people want them 'just because'. Operationally, heavy freight is well served by 28xx / 2884 and soon the 8-coupled tanks too.

 

Can I put a plea in for a Metro tank / 517 class .... Although I think I might be whistling into the wind on that one as none made it to BR days / livery.

 

Failing that I will be happy for a new 48xx and maybe a 64xx.

 

The King is not too bad, although I tend not to run it next to a new Hornby Castle !!

[Barry Ten]

Bachmann should jump on the 94xx as, barring odd details like sandboxes, they already have the chassis essentially ready to go from their 57/87xx panniers. Yes, it's got restricted usefulness to GWR modellers but it is an interesting, chunky prototype with lots of scope for fine detailing.

 

However, back to your regularly scheduled King programming...

[Trains&armour]

After reading this thread and seeing Barry Ten's modified King I decided to stop waiting for a retooled King....

And now, somewhat of topic, I want to buy  the shirtbuttoned version, King  George I . There's one for sale right now, but the sellers tells me that there is  no detailling pack (brake rodding, vacuum pipes ect.) and that this  model was orginally sold without it. 

Now, I'm pretty sure that all recent releases had those, but could any of you gentlemen please enlighten me?

 

(And don't ask me why I want one for my  Cambrian based layout, it's wartime and strange things happen. )

 

Sierd Jan

[The Stationmaster]

Bachmann should jump on the 94xx as, barring odd details like sandboxes, they already have the chassis essentially ready to go from their 57/87xx panniers. Yes, it's got restricted usefulness to GWR modellers but it is an interesting, chunky prototype with lots of scope for fine detailing.

 

However, back to your regularly scheduled King programming...

Another potential difficulty with using the 57XX/8750 chassis is the difference in overhang beyond the coupled wheelbase between the two classes - although that could possibly be dealt with somehow within the footplate casting?  However it is a class I would welcome, the Newport District was quite fond of using them on passenger trains

[Welchester]

Can I put a plea in for a Metro tank / 517 class .... Although I think I might be whistling into the wind on that one as none made it to BR days / livery.

 

I think the last couple or so of Metros made it to about 1950, though without being repainted into BR livery.

 

What actually would be very nice would be an updated Dean Goods, which ticks all the boxes: a long and widespread career and many choices of livery.

[Coach bogie]

What actually would be very nice would be an updated Dean Goods, which ticks all the boxes: a long and widespread career and many choices of livery.

The lack of interest from Hornby with this one has surprised quite a few modellers, especially as the frame is the same/similar 7' 3"- 8' 3" wheel base for other GWR / non GWR locos. It would give them a new 57XX frame ( exactly the same wheel base).

 

The 54XX is more of an issue as the symetrical 7' 4"- 7' 4" frames is common to the 2021 Panniers (which the 54XX design was born out of) though as the market for 57XX must be staturated by now an alternative in the guise of a  2021 would be most welcome, especially as over 100 engnes lasted well into BR days.

 

Mike Wiltshire

[6959]

After reading this thread and seeing Barry Ten's modified King I decided to stop waiting for a retooled King....

And now, somewhat of topic, I want to buy  the shirtbuttoned version, King  George I . There's one for sale right now, but the sellers tells me that there is  no detailling pack (brake rodding, vacuum pipes ect.) and that this  model was orginally sold without it. 

Now, I'm pretty sure that all recent releases had those, but could any of you gentlemen please enlighten me?

 

(And don't ask me why I want one for my  Cambrian based layout, it's wartime and strange things happen. )

 

Sierd Jan

After reading this, I took my R2544 loco out of the cabinet and it is running as I write this. Nearly crashed into back of 'Evening Star' I forgot was around the other side from yesterday. The loco has loco and brake rodding attached and there is no compartment in the styrofoam tray to accommodate these loose so I assume they were put on at the factory. There is a small detailing packing in a square hole in the front of the tray and this contains two 'men', a front coupling with screw for it, and a screw coupling.

 

My main complaints with it are that it has BR steam pipes and I tried to swap them for those from an old 'King Henry VIII' but they broke. The new steam pipes have small bumps on each end which snap into the holes in the loco body. The pipes on the older tender drive Kings have longer pegs on each end which snap off if you try to force them into new body. Fortunately the failure was reversible and the old pipes went back on. If you use older pipes it would be wise to file the pegs shorter on each end. The glaring fault for GWR condition is the roof hatches that were introduced by BR from about March 1954. The tender is the Airfix moulding but with two square access hatches in the back corners of the tank. The water filler dome is not a very good shape but I can live with it. The tender on mine was low compared to the loco so I packed the tender top up with thin card.

 

If this model was upgraded to have the correct pipes and roof for the livery, and the new tender from the Castle class was used it would be quite good enough for me. There were two tenders on these Kings. The as-built tenders had the weaker chassis side frames and with sand boxes. Those 4000 gallon Collett tenders built for Halls and Castles had a stronger underframe. After WW2 some Kings had later tender tops on older chassis. Hornby has produced both types of tender undercart on the Grange models. Loco details on Roche drawing W/L/10 and tender on W/TE/10 in my Ian Allan edition. Some people have complained about the front bogie being over scale. I have a white metal King bogie from Eames but have not tried to fit it.

[6959]

PS. The vacuum pipes on the buffer beams were installed in the factory - one on front of loco and one one on back of tender. Also, there is a small hook on the front buffer beam. I bought my loco new from Hattons in 2008 so can assume it is complete and as-made. I paid 68 quid for it, if this is any sort of price guide to mint condition. In contrast, I paid 52 Pounds for 'King William IV' used but mint on ebay in 2010. A new 'King George VI' in BR blue cost me 50 quid in 2004. Hope this helps.

[Trains&armour]

Thanks very much! And the detail being factory fitted does explain the confusion. Now the decision will be to either buy the king George I or the King William IV. The king George I has the shirtbutton logo, which fits with my modelling period, but, as these machines weren't permitted on the Cambrian lines, who am I fooling anyway.....

 

Sierd Jan

[Barry Ten]

The glaring fault for GWR condition is the roof hatches that were introduced by BR circa 1956.

 

Very true but it is possible to sand them down with some care - at least, I did this on my Lima King which has the same problem for an early BR condition, so I presume the same fix is doable on the Hornby one. The rivets can be reinstated with dabs of PVA or decal rivets, if you're bothered.

[Horsetan]

A bomb under it for starters.Then they can start afresh with a blank piece of paper please.Then lets have it in Great Western green not BR blue and we'll be cooking on gas.Put me down for half a dozen quality models but none if its warmed over 70s tat.

 

 

It's not a bad model at all now, as has already been stated in other threads. Look at the sidebars etc... It's not perfect, but looks fine alongside new Castles and Granges. It is not the old 1970s loco.

 

The original "King" from 1979 was "KEI". That truly was awful, with a boiler skirt (and it was tender-driven!). In about 1981, Hornby improved it by removing the skirt, which made it a lot easier to look at, and renamed it as "KHVIII". Of course, those were the days when you could get a Crownline detailing kit (no.22 and 22a) for it and go to town.....

[Taz]

Out of interest, how does the Hornby King do on the basic dimensions front?

I have one and although it isn't of the same standard as the latest Castle, I don't think it looks too bad and would scrub up quite well with a few detailing bits.

[6959]

Out of interest, how does the Hornby King do on the basic dimensions front?

I have one and although it isn't of the same standard as the latest Castle, I don't think it looks too bad and would scrub up quite well with a few detailing bits.

Recent loco-drive Hornby 'King' compares favourably in general shape and size with Roche drawing W/L/10. The loco body is from same moulds as old version albeit slightly updated.

 

The old tender driven Hornby loco's like 'King Henry VIII' were 2mm too high in loco and tender and both were difficult to lower. Old tender was too wide and rather crude and not of much use to modify.

 

Airfix- derived 4000 gallon Collett tender used on newer versions is generally accurate in overall dimensions and looks the part except for the dome.