New Hornby M7 ?

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.

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.

"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.

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!

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 !...

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.

"Jerry." wrote

Ah, an expert! ;-)

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.

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.

Are you saying that the two are the same, or did the HD motor morph into the version introduced with the 9F ?

"Ian J." wrote

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.

Exactly, and how many RTR / Southern / loco's are available today - not that many so any 'new' loco or stock will be welcomed with open arms by the many who do model south of the Themes.

so if it wouldn't sell then it never would. I'm not suggesting

Well I did say that I don't think the M7 would be a good choice, but if Hornby did produce a model it would sell due to the reasons you have stated. Just as any LNER model will. Let's face it, the Deltics have a very limited geographical operating base and time period (ECML and just 21 years) but no one is saying that Bachmann have made a mistake in choosing the Deltic....

You are assuming that no one wants to model pre '48, if people are only modelling BR steam the best loco to choose would be a BR standard tank - but as people model pre WW2 they need to think about loco's from the big four, not to mention 'gaps' in the market (why do you think Bachmann choose ex LNER loco's).

Another thing is, Hornby seem to like to offer loco's in their pre-grouping colours, any model of an M7 would allow this.

SR stock went all over the country too, especially into GWR land... The point I was making was that if Bachmann (and before them Mainline / Dapol) had not taken the RTR gap in the market for ex LNER loco's we would still only have the Hornby examples - by your reckoning they should have stayed safe and produced yet another ex GWR or LMS loco. Half of their market share must be due to exploiting that gap in the market - perhaps Hornby are trying to exploit another gap ?

"Jerry." > wrote

Totally different units. The later Hornby Ringfield was virtually a direct copy of a drive designed by Fleischmann.

John.

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.

"Jerry." wrote

Some do indeed, but my retail experience tells me that for every pre-1948 liveried loco I sell around twenty BR liveried ones go from my shelves.

John.

A basic 0-4-4 tank chassis could be used to model other types, for those of us willing to accept possible minor inaccuracies in details such as wheelbase length. For example, LMS/Caledonian design, LNER (NER) Class G5 would be possibilities.

Bevan

My local traders back this up, not sure about 20 :1 as i never asked the actual figure but BR stuff far outsells pre-grouping.

Looking at every thing new in the last couple of years though, the Standard is so good it will sell no matter what loco it is, people are enjoying being able to buy excellent running locos that are near enough perfect for us majority of modellers(Apart from the Diesel Rivet Counters !) by the bucket loads.

I personally think that if they produced a series ofBR(S) EMU's, they would be onto a good thing. Not that EVER mentioned that before :-) Rob

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.

In message , piemanlarger writes

I assume this is the "forty year rule" in operation.