What an extraordinary question, as well as an extremely incoherent one.
Of course I actually know that Rivarossi made the LMS HO models, which is why I posted it. If that is indeed the question Mr Mutley is asking.
BTW Mr Mutley, the phrase "Actually, I think you will find....." does not mean "I do not really know but perhaps......"; it is a polite way of telling the original poster that he has got it wrong.
The LMS stock which Rivarossi offered in HO scale in their 1988 catalogue were:-
Item 1348 4-6-0 locomotive "Royal Scot" LMS No. 6100 Item 1350 4-6-0 locomotive "Hector" LMS No. 6140.
Item 2933 First class compartment and saloon coach LMS Item 2934 Brake third corridor coach LMS Item 2935 Third class corridor coach LMS.
Both locomotives were in original, parallel boiler form, Hector having smoke deflectors.
The coaches were panel sided stock, the 1st class one being identified as 1928 build and all were stated to be used in the "Royal Scot" train formation and had the early panelled sides, ie Reid, rather than Stanier design. The first class coach was, perhaps, a stange choice as only 16 coaches of that seating arrangement were built and not all were identical to the model.
IIRC the items 1348, 2933 and 2934 were introduced first some time before 1988. By the 1990 catalogue, the item 1348 "Royal Scot" locomotive was no longer listed. Presumably because production had ceased and this one, being the more popular name, had sold out.
My reasons for stating that these Rivarossi, Fleischmann and Trix items were poor sellers is from simple observation. How many featured on contemporary exhibition layouts or indeed on current swapmeet stalls? How many did other club members show off at the local model railway club's running nights? Mr Mutley has obviously never even heard of the Rivarossi ones.
My remark about Rivarossi's poor marketing is from the simple fact that very few model shops carried them.
The locomotives were described as "English" which is a mistake perhaps excusable in an Italian company but, of course, the Royal Scots were the most Scottish of the locomotives built new for the LMS. They were not only named as a class after a Scottish regiment but were built in Glasgow by the North British Locomotive Company but even designed for the LMS by that firm's own drawing office rather than the LMS ones at Derby or Crewe as these were overloaded with work at the time and the locomotives were urgently required. The drawings were worked up quickly as they were based on a set of Southern Railway "Lord Nelson" ones which had been kindly lent to the LMS.
Mr Mutley also stated:-
As I have already posted, but Mr Mutley chooses pointedly to ignore, these were not made by Fleischmann.
If he also had even a glimmer of understanding of model economics he would realise that scrapping a stock of models would be a very desparate measure indeed as their scrap value is miniscule compared to selling them even very heavily discounted.
Even if one run of a model eventually sells out that is no criterion of whether a particular model is a commercial success or not.
By far the major cost in any mass produced model is the development stage (research, production of tools and dies, sales literature, etc.). These are once only costs which must be recovered as part of the price of each item sold.
If the quantity of models sold is less than the number estimated when deciding how much of the development costs each model sold is to carry then that does NOT amount to a success. As Hornby (the original Meccano one) and British Trix discocered the hard way.
If a model is planned as a limited run and priced accordingly then that model run can return a good profit if sales are good. Hence the current popularity of that style of production.
Also remember that stock which is unsold or sells very slowly incurs costs of its own, warehousing expenses, bank loan charges etc. It has also occupied design and manufacturing resources which could have been better employed elswhere in a better selling item.
The actual making of the model, (casting, injection moulding or whatever, finishing, assembly, etc.) is a relatively small item and is fairly constant per item no matter what quantities are sold.
If it were any other model exactly the same economics would apply, despite the other strange remark from Mr Mutley that implies that somehow different "rules" apply in this instance. Perhaps he will explain to us what he means.
Alex. W. Stirrat