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)
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  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 !
 having spent money on developing a new motor & transmission unit you
can't blame them for using it in more than just the 9F.
All the Hornby Dublo ringfields were loco mounted, totally filling the
cab, the Castle and 8F were better with the original pre-ringfield
Make friends in the hobby.
Garratt photos for the big steam lovers.
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.
Make friends in the hobby.
Garratt photos for the big steam lovers.
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.
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?
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
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
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 !...
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.
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
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).
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
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
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.
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.
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.