New Hornby M7 ?

Has anyone else heard of these rumours that Hornby are going to be doing a "super-detail" version of the old triang M7? Would be pretty
usefull personally speaking, as well as being able to be issued in several different liveries. Anyone for LSWR Green?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I doubt Hornby would be that interested in using the existing tools, they're quite old and probably life expired now. I haven't heard anything of plans to do an entirely new M7, but as you say, it would be pretty useful for us Southern and BR(S) fans.
We can but live in hope (which I also do for a locomotive powered 9F)
Ian J.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<snip>

they're
And total crap by today's standards, although it was one of the 'better' models when first released - how times and expectations change, when the Triang M7 was new the most people hoped for was that is was as close to scale length as possible and looked something like the prototype (people who moan about the 'detail' problems with the Bachmann Deltic should consider if they prefer the old H-D effort, you don't know you're born...) !
I haven't heard anything of plans

There are better 'Southern' loco's to chose from IMO than the M7, the M7 was either mainly an ECS loco or a 'SW branch train' engine - other tank loco's had a better mix of duites and thus would surely have a wider appeal ?

Trying to think were one would place a motor ?! IIRC it was the 9F that made Triang move over to tender power [1] as there is very little room of a motor if you are going to leave day light visible between the top of the frames and the bottom of the boiler !
[1] having spent money on developing a new motor & transmission unit you can't blame them for using it in more than just the 9F.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hornby-Dublo introduced the Ringfield motor on the diecast GWR Castle in 1960, but I can't remember if it was loco or tender mounted. The Triang- Hornby 9F was introduced in 1971.
--
Martin S.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Are you saying that the two are the same, or did the HD motor morph into the version introduced with the 9F ?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Jerry." > wrote

the
Totally different units. The later Hornby Ringfield was virtually a direct copy of a drive designed by Fleischmann.
John.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You're the expert, John. But did HD use loco-mounted Ringfields, and was the 9F the first Triang-Hornby with tender drive? I stopped collecting HD 3-rail about 1961, so I just don't know.
--
Martin S.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"MartinS" wrote

Yes to both, *but* they were *totally* different drive units linked in design only by the Ringfield name.
John.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

All the Hornby Dublo ringfields were loco mounted, totally filling the cab, the Castle and 8F were better with the original pre-ringfield motors. Keith
Make friends in the hobby. Visit <http://www.grovenor.dsl.pipex.com/ Garratt photos for the big steam lovers.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Triang moved to tender drive because of customer pressure, go back and read the mags from those days, every reveiw criticised the drive and contrasted it with the supposedly much better drives in the Continental H0 locos, especially Fleischmann, that were tender drive.
Ironic that this customer pressure is noow in the opposite direction. Keith Make friends in the hobby. Visit <http://www.grovenor.dsl.pipex.com/ Garratt photos for the big steam lovers.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I guess that's due to improvements in technology, including the availability of compact 5-pole motors.
I had trouble with 2 of my tender-drive locos, a Black 5 and an A1, running jerkily. After cleaning the track, wheels, wheel bearings and commutator, the problem persisted. Attaching a thin jumper wire between the loco chassis and the tender link restored smooth running.
--
Martin S.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"MartinS" wrote

Compact 5-pole motors have been around for donkey's years, Hornby only considered them at all when the competition from Bachmann forced them to produce something which actually worked reliably.
John.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"John Ruddy" wrote

Not heard this one, but it sounds as though the sort of minority model that Hornby would produce. Why make something which would sell throughout the whole of the country when you can produce a model that would mainly sell just south of the Thames?
John.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Well, until they brought out the MNs and the Q1, what Southern stuff did they do? The M7 and E2 many years ago, the BoB too was their only recent model apart from the schools. The amount of different GWR and LNER and LMS model far outweighed the numebr of SR things. Look at the only "southern" coaches they do, theire generic "GWR" ones with different roof.
So perhaps it is time they looked after those who like things south of the thames!
Regards David

that
--
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

<snip>
that
What utter tripe ! When the Triang M7 was first produced it was one of the best sellers, if you are correct no models of ex LNER or SR stock would ever sell - tell Bachann that, oh, and why did Hornby produce both MN and WC/BB classes !...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Jerry." wrote

Ah, an expert! ;-)

you
Bachann
When Tri-ang first produced the M7 there was very little else available on the market, so if it wouldn't sell then it never would. I'm not suggesting that an M7 wouldn't sell at all, I just reckon there are numerous other types that would sell better. Let's just see, for instance, how well the Q1 sells in two years time.
Now be honest, if you were going to sink *your* money into a steam outline tank loco would you choose an M7 or would you say pick something rather more universal, let's say a Fairburn 2-6-4T (used throughout the UK including the Southern Region) or a BR Standard 3MT 2-6-2T (which saw service on the WR, SR, NER & LMR)?
Your comments on LNER stock confirms your knowledge of tripe - Gresley coaches were used throughout the UK on inter-Regional workings, and don't forget that the LNER empire itself spread from London to Aberdeen, Cleethorpes to Liverpool as well as trundling into Wales.
John.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

suggesting
Q1
more
the
I think that there are valid points on both sides here. Of course there is a preference for making something that 'sells' in good quantities, and this is why the Southern and BR(S) have been neglected so long - the manufacturers always believe that the SR and BR(S) are too small to be worth making much for. However, they are wrong. The sales of MNs and the interest in the Q1 are at least some proof of this, and I do believe that an M7 would sell reasonably well.
If we were to follow your train of thought John, then the only classes that the Manufacturers should really be interested in would be the BR Standards, as they were the only classes that were used particularly widely on most if not all regions (there are of course a few pre-nationalisation classes that were more widespread than their origin company's territory, but there weren't really that many).
Ian J.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Ian J." wrote

that
Standards,
if
that
I hear what you say and can't disagree, but I think there is still scope for more *universal* loco's other than BR Standards before manufacturers start to look at particularly area restricted examples such as the M7.
I've already mentioned the Fairburn 2-6-4T and I know Bachmann are to produce the Ivatt 4MT 2-6-0 which were extremely widely used and certainly *very* welcome for universal needs, but also the smaller Ivatt 2MT 2-6-0 would also be well received - another model which was a very good seller for Tri-ang in the past, if not terribly accurate and not available for a long time.
A near *universal* 0-6-0 would be the Fowler 4F and don't tell me that the existing Hornby model fills that need. I've yet to find one which runs to the sort of standard that I demand, and its accuracy is also questionable in many areas.
John.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 17:33:42 -0000, "John Turner"

Yes, a decent 4F (with all its different variations, left hand drive/right hand drive etc) and good models of the BR 3MT and the Ivatt 2MT 2-6-0 would all be welcome, and would sell very well.
But whereas you can create a model based on a GW (or BR(W)) and LMS (or BR(M) ) using completely RTR stock - the Southern modeller is still very poorly served. The main problem is that the pre-group stock stayed in its normal home areas until withdrawal in the 50's and 60's. The Ivatt 2-6-2 tank helps, as would any of the BR standards which were allocated to the SR. Hornby have made a bold move building a Q1 - only 40 were built remember, and they spent most of their lives on London based frieght workings. The M7's numbered over 100, and were seen on many varied duties, on the southwestern division from Waterloo carriage workings to local passenger trips from Plymouth Friary. Some even made it to the southeastern division!
Perhaps a better option might be a G6 or O2 ? They were almost identical apart from the chassis, so savings could be made.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"John Ruddy" wrote

I wonder why?
It's not because the trade have not supported the Southern in the past. Tri-ang produced the Bulleid BB 4-6-2, a King Arthur class 4-6-0 in the form of "Sir Dinadan", the M7 0-4-4T and even an EMU whilst Hornby added the 0-6-0T which became "Thomas", the ex-Dapol A1X 0-6-0T, rebuilt Merchant Navy & light pacifics and latter the Q1 0-6-0.
Hornby Dublo came along with the rebuilt WC and the R1 0-6-0T and in more recent years Bachmann have added N class 2-6-0 and Lord Nelson 4-6-0.
In terms of loco's alone, I think you'll find that makes the LNER a poor relation, and even worse when it come to coaching stock although hopefully some scale Gresleys (at last) will improve that and add to the fairly reasonable Bachmann models of the Thompson post-war stock.
John.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.