Quote from: Newportnobby on <strong>Today</strong> at 10:59:45 AMDespite a mainly WR bias I've never hankered after a 'King'. I never saw one at Oxford in my spotting days and here's what Google A.I. has to say.......

The 30-strong King class (4-6-0) carried a heavy "Double Red" route classification due to their 22.5-ton axle load (the highest of any British 4-6-0). Because of these strict weight and civil engineering limits, they were generally restricted from routes like the Oxford-to-Worcester (Cotswold) line and standard local turns.

I would very much doubt that "standard local turns" would be part of a King's typical rostering, they were used on the heaviest expresses to Birmingham/Wolverhampton Low Level, the Bristol route and West Country as far as Plymouth. Therein lies one issue as a model in N, but as has been said previously (and I have to reflect), it isn't really so different to the A3s.A4s, Duchesses and Merchant Navies...

Quote from: Newportnobby on <strong>Today</strong> at 10:59:45 AMDespite a mainly WR bias I've never hankered after a 'King'. I never saw one at Oxford in my spotting days and here's what Google A.I. has to say.......

The 30-strong King class (4-6-0) carried a heavy "Double Red" route classification due to their 22.5-ton axle load (the highest of any British 4-6-0). Because of these strict weight and civil engineering limits, they were generally restricted from routes like the Oxford-to-Worcester (Cotswold) line and standard local turns.

I doubt one ever made it to Oxford under normal circumstances but very happy to be proven wrong.

However, they did venture onto a branch line regularly.
The Paignton to Kingswear branch saw through workings by Kings with expresses from London (Paddington).

So, anyone modelling Kingswear or Churston as country branch stations or a terminus (or a representation of such stations) can justifiably include a King.

As a young lad growing up in Trowbridge, we always thought that the reason we didn't see Kings there was because their front bogie was too heavy and their cylinders were too wide.
That wasn't of course, the reason but we believed it back then.
I did see Kings at Westbury though.

Being a Brummie born and grown i saw most of the Kings at Snow hill.

I did ask a few replies back what was wrong with the farish king ?--but no one replied. I have 2--both run well and look good, cost me about £40 each on ebay. I would definitely buy a new tooled one.

I think it could be farish's best seller.

I think farish took a bold step in doing the Hall--after Dapol must have sold stacks of theirs.

Also--the 64xx pannier--why ?

I hope farish do it: i think its too much of a risk for the small players.
Dapol?--no point--i will be long gone before it would put in an appearance.

Quote from: Bigmac on <strong>Today</strong> at 11:46:26 AMBeing a Brummie born and grown i saw most of the Kings at Snow hill.

I did ask a few replies back what was wrong with the farish king ?--but no one replied. I have 2--both run well and look good, cost me about £40 each on ebay. I would definitely buy a new tooled one.

I think it could be farish's best seller.

I think farish took a bold step in doing the Hall--after Dapol must have sold stacks of theirs.

Also--the 64xx pannier--why ?

I hope farish do it: i think its too much of a risk for the small players.
Dapol?--no point--i will be long gone before it would put in an appearance.

What is wrong with the last Farish King? Well even at the time it wasn't the best of models, borrowing a Castle chassis to keep costs down.

In terms of now, the simple answer is what was originally produced back in the late 1990s no longer meets expectations, things have moved on, people now expect a more accurate chassis with see-through spokes and underframe detail, accurate well detailed body with separate handrails/fittings, glazed and detailed cab, DCC socket and speaker.

The Hall was a good choice because the Dapol one was showing it's age, and this latest Farish one is to modern standards. A mixed traffic loco like that is extremely versatile and travelled far and wide, they even found their way onto the Great Central on cross-country expresses as far as Leicester and on occasions Nottingham - which is why I have a couple of them, I would have no place for a King or Castle but ba Hall yes, ditto the soon to be released Dapol GW mogul.

I suspect the 64xx came into being because (1) they do one in OO (2) it makes a good partner for their Hawksworth auto-coach and (3) at the time Dapol were already producing the 57xx (and still do today). It isn't a bad choice, predominately a branch-line loco I believe they were also used on main line push-pull turns on occasion.

As to a "King" being a "best seller" I think that is doubtful as there are many more versatile classes of GW loco of which the Hall and Castle are two, the fact that Bachmann have done a second run of Castles says a lot.

Might a "King" nonetheless "wash it's face" financially? That is probably a more realistic prospect, it is certainly appears more likely to than the air-smoothed "Merchant Navy" Farish produced (which didn't seem to sell well).

Roy

Quote from: Roy L S on <strong>Today</strong> at 11:14:19 AM

Quote from: Newportnobby on <strong>Today</strong> at 10:59:45 AMDespite a mainly WR bias I've never hankered after a 'King'. I never saw one at Oxford in my spotting days and here's what Google A.I. has to say.......

The 30-strong King class (4-6-0) carried a heavy "Double Red" route classification due to their 22.5-ton axle load (the highest of any British 4-6-0). Because of these strict weight and civil engineering limits, they were generally restricted from routes like the Oxford-to-Worcester (Cotswold) line and standard local turns.

I would very much doubt that "standard local turns" would be part of a King's typical rostering

I think that's typical A.I. ambiguity, Roy. I took it to mean the Kings were banned from Oxford-Worcester and standard local turns.

Quote from: Newportnobby on <strong>Today</strong> at 12:23:09 PM

Quote from: Roy L S on <strong>Today</strong> at 11:14:19 AM

Quote from: Newportnobby on <strong>Today</strong> at 10:59:45 AMDespite a mainly WR bias I've never hankered after a 'King'. I never saw one at Oxford in my spotting days and here's what Google A.I. has to say.......

The 30-strong King class (4-6-0) carried a heavy "Double Red" route classification due to their 22.5-ton axle load (the highest of any British 4-6-0). Because of these strict weight and civil engineering limits, they were generally restricted from routes like the Oxford-to-Worcester (Cotswold) line and standard local turns.

I would very much doubt that "standard local turns" would be part of a King's typical rostering

I think that's typical A.I. ambiguity, Roy. I took it to mean the Kings were banned from Oxford-Worcester and standard local turns.

Yes I now see that, and to think AI is supposedly the future (or so the Tech giants and politicians would have us believe!).

consider the big four:

Eastern have had numerous streaks from several manufacturers for many years

LM :Duchess locos by farish--poole, early China and the superb coreless masterpiece  ( but no princess--but thats a different story )

Southern: several WC/BB and MN both streamlined and not---and a new tool by Dapol definitely imminent anytime soon eventually.

So--why not a new King? after all--we have The New King already.

So--come on guys--no more negative replies--dont give Farish the wrong idea.

Is it because all GWR tender locos look the same so no one knows if it's a King or not 

Quote from: thebrighton on <strong>Today</strong> at 01:52:14 PMIs it because all GWR tender locos look the same so no one knows if it's a King or not 

no they dont !!!  The King driving wheels are 2" smaller than the Castle---thats very important in N gauge.

Sorry, but 2" difference in driving wheel diameter wasn't even important at 12" : 1'.

Tyre wear could mean that drivers could be up to three inches smaller than nominal diameter before replacement was needed; it varied from company to company, probably, but I'm not sure.

So you could have a King with worn tyres with smaller wheels then a newly tyred Castle.

The biggest noticeable differences between King and Castle were front bogie and main steam pipe layout.

I've nothing against a King, but they certainly never got to East Anglia  . Though as has just been said, the LNER Pacifics and V2s are available, and they were basically ECML and associated loops or GCR (not A4s) for their working lives.

Martyn

 

 "Sorry, but 2" difference in driving wheel diameter wasn't even important at 12" : 1'."


errm--i was being facetious 

Quote from: martyn on <strong>Today</strong> at 02:17:55 PMSorry, but 2" difference in driving wheel diameter wasn't even important at 12" : 1'.

Tyre wear could mean that drivers could be up to three inches smaller than nominal diameter before replacement was needed; it varied from company to company, probably, but I'm not sure.

So you could have a King with worn tyres with smaller wheels then a newly tyred Castle.

The biggest noticeable differences between King and Castle were front bogie and main steam pipe layout.

I've nothing against a King, but they certainly never got to East Anglia  . Though as has just been said, the LNER Pacifics and V2s are available, and they were basically ECML and associated loops or GCR (not A4s) for their working lives.

Martyn

The King has a larger boiler both in terms of diameter and length (over 1ft longer) and the firebox is also 1ft 6 ins longer than that of the Castle all of which for me gives it a greater "presence".