Kitmaster HO

[Tim-Hale]

Hi,

 

Were all Kitmaster HO products made to 1:87? Their range included a DB coach, Transfera refrigerated van, FS and DB steam locos* and SBB crocodile, I apologise if I have missed anything.

 

*Was there an SNCF example?

 

Tim 

 

 

[41516]

Yes, the SNCF 241P Mountain 4-8-2.  http://www.kitmaster.org.uk/Mountain.htm

 

I've not long acquired most of one by accident in a job lot.  It's big!

 

[Tim-Hale]

Hi,

 

Were all Kitmaster HO products made to 1:87?

 

Tim

[Grovenor]

http://www.kitmaster.org.uk/

 

Might give some help, Its a question that's never been clear to me. The Interfrigo van was not kitmaster, Airfix introduced it and it is H0.

[sncf231e]

Kitmaster made a French coach (Kitmaster 29) which was H0 and thus the same size as an H0 model made by Europolitrain to a scale of 1:87, see https://www.rmweb.co.uk/topic/180210-kitmaster-french-coaches/?do=findComment&comment=5220634

 

 

I assume, but have not checked, that all continental European Kitmaster models were 1:87.

Regards

Fred

Edited October 28, 2023 by sncf231e

[Steamport Southport]

2 hours ago, Grovenor said:

http://www.kitmaster.org.uk/

 

Might give some help, Its a question that's never been clear to me. The Interfrigo van was not kitmaster, Airfix introduced it and it is H0.

 

Wasn't it a case of it being planned by Kitmaster and Airfix released it after Kitmaster went bust?

 

http://www.airfixrailways.co.uk/Refrig.htm

 

That might explain the odd choice of a van that I don't think worked in the UK and the scale. Date of 1962 fits that scenario.

 

Similar thing happened after Airfix was taken over by Pailtoy with models such as the LNER N2 and GWR Dean Goods.

 

 

Jason

[RodneyS]

I seem to recall reading at the time that the Italian tank was 4mm scale.

I had one and it was certainly rather large.

 

The box illustrated in the link above just says it can run on 00/H0 track.

Rodney

 

[The Johnster]

2 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

That might explain the odd choice of a van that I don't think worked in the UK and the scale. Date of 1962 fits that scenario.

 

The prototype 'Interfrigo' vans were built (in Germany IIRC) for through train-ferry work to the UK (note the 'anchor' branding), and therefore to the UK loading gauge.  The Airfix kit model was to 3.5mm scale, stated as many models of those days were to be '00/H0', meaning that it could run on 00 track (no sh&t, Sherlock).  But being a 3.5mm model of a prototype built to a UK loading gauge it looked small against Berne-gauge  H0 stock, and very undernourished indeed on a 00 layout!  I had one though; rolling stock for 2/6d was hard to come by in those days and I think everybody with a layout had one, and at least one of all the other Airfix wagons as well!

 

[kevinlms]

But was this Continental stuff, the reason why these kits Airfix and Kitmaster, didn't make it worthwhile, except for later limited runs of limited items. Certainly much of the tooling was considered as not worth repairing.

[Steamport Southport]

20 hours ago, The Johnster said:

 

The prototype 'Interfrigo' vans were built (in Germany IIRC) for through train-ferry work to the UK (note the 'anchor' branding), and therefore to the UK loading gauge.  The Airfix kit model was to 3.5mm scale, stated as many models of those days were to be '00/H0', meaning that it could run on 00 track (no sh&t, Sherlock).  But being a 3.5mm model of a prototype built to a UK loading gauge it looked small against Berne-gauge  H0 stock, and very undernourished indeed on a 00 layout!  I had one though; rolling stock for 2/6d was hard to come by in those days and I think everybody with a layout had one, and at least one of all the other Airfix wagons as well!

 

 

But it's the wrong type of van for the ones that came to the UK.

 

There was a thread about them a while ago.

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/topic/175342-interfigo-van/

 

 

Jason

[DCB]

On 28/10/2023 at 10:24, 41516 said:

Yes, the SNCF 241P Mountain 4-8-2.  http://www.kitmaster.org.uk/Mountain.htm

 

I've not long acquired most of one by accident in a job lot.  It's big!

 

 

 

It's 00 scale not H0.       I had one and it's huge.   I sold it on on eBay but kept the tender and it towers over 00 locos and is massively wide. 
 

The old 00/H0 thing just tells you which gauge track it runs on, it's fine when they say 00/H0 Gauge, meaningless when they say 00/H0 Scale,  which can be anywhere between about 1:72  to  1:100 with 1:76, and 1:87  being most popular.  The Merit trackside figures barely scale at 1:100 and Trix chose 1:80 then changed to 1:76 (ish) .      It's worth remembering  many 00 models are over height and over width  The bodies are generally pretty good but plenty still have the buffer centre line 1mm too high as their heritage is Triang / Hornby.. .    Virtually everything H0 with outside cylinders is overscale width, as are some 00, my 9F is 40mm  wide,10ft,  can't remember whether its the Bachmann , Hornby or Triang Hornby, but       all my platforms are adjusted to allow 40mm clearance.     

Edited October 29, 2023 by DCB

[Il Grifone]

AFAIK all the Continental locomotive kits were 00 scale (poor market research!). The coaches (one French and one German IIRC) were H0.

The NYC Hudson was also H0 scale.

All the British stock (locos, coaches and a motorised van (the same prototype as the Dublo one - possibly the same moulding?) were 00.

 

If the track gauge is to scale, it is extremely difficult to get the 'works' to fit in a scale body. It's often a problem on the prototype!

[DCB]

24 minutes ago, Il Grifone said:

AFAIK all the Continental locomotive kits were 00 scale (poor market research!). The coaches (one French and one German IIRC) were H0.

The NYC Hudson was also H0 scale.

All the British stock (locos, coaches and a motorised van (the same prototype as the Dublo one - possibly the same moulding?) were 00.

 

If the track gauge is to scale, it is extremely difficult to get the 'works' to fit in a scale body. It's often a problem on the prototype!

The Kitmaster box van has buffer beams as part of the moulding which Hornby Dublo lacks as the cast chassis has the buffers.  The Airfix (formerly Kitmaster?)  Meat van body is fractionally narrower than Hornby Dublo. maybe 1mm but it won't fit the H/D chassis without filing bits off the chassis or body.     The Kitmaster power unit is not great, I had several but nothing worth re using, The Triang DMU/ EMU Transcon chassis and the H/D class 20 chassis are much better engineered.   Not quite sure if they are compatible wheelbase wise.

[The Johnster]

The reason for developing 00, 4mm/foot on 16.5mm track, was that it problematic in the 1930s (the time that commercial UK-outline RTR was being developed) to shoehorn mechanisms into the smaller space of UK prototype models than it was to do so with the European H0 models that the first 00 mechs were based on.  We are still living with the compromise; Lima attempted to introduce H0 1:87 scale UK-outline models in the seventies, but there was little appetite among modellers or  the trade in general for it an British H0 remains a niche speciality...

 

An advantage of this was exploited by Rovex Triang in the fifties with their H0 'Transcontinental' range, which were based on Canadian, US, and antipodean prototypes that had been built to the US loading gauge.  This meant that the models were big enough to run with 00 locos and stock, and many of my childhood friends' layouts happily ran the two together without there being a significant difference in height or width; if you weren't aware of the loading gauge differences, the ranges 'sat' perfectly well together!

 

The excess height of Rovex/Triang and Triang Hornby models is little to do with scale, and is a result of enabling the original Rovex Black Princess to negotiate the geometry of the proprietary incline piers, without the leading bogie fouling on the underside of the bodyshell especially if the gradient began at a staight/curve joint on 'Standard' setrack.  I am unaware if the same fouling would have plagued later models such as the Hiawatha, Britannia, or Winston Churchill but all of them were produced to the 2mm excess height. along with the rolling stock.  Short wheelbase vans and wagons looked particularly odd.

 

Both Triang and Hornby Dublo produced mineral wagons to fit the standard generic scale 10' wheelbase chassis, stretching the bodyside panels to preserve a reasonable facsimilie of the proportions, and these overlength wagons are still with us, available from Dapol who inhertied them from Wrenn and ultimately HD and from Hornby, from the Rovex/Triang line of DNA.  I believe Trix made correct to scale minerals, but to a hybrid 00/H0 1:80 scale.  Lima and Airfix also used generic 10' chassis for their minerals, and the only scale 1:76 RTR 9' chassis minerals were those from Mainline.  These were the genesis of the current Bachmann models, and have since been joined by minerals with correct 9' scale chassis from Oxford and Accurascale; Rapido have also produced wagons with 9' chassis. 

 

The reason for excess height in older RTR has been covered, but many models were also oversized in terms of width.  Hornby Dublo were often guilty of this, and their 1960 'Superdetail' range is significant here as some of it was perpetuated by Wrenn after HD's collapse and thus by Dapol up to the present time.  Fruit D, cattle van, and the associated rebuilt boarded-up ex-cattle van meat van are examples, the latter two on incorrect wheelbase chassis as well.  Models distorted in this way are very difficult to correct, and it is usually better to build kits if that is within your comfort zone. 

 

Distortions to acccomodate motors were not restricted to the 1930s, and AIUI Mainline's 43xx, for examle , had a fattened and heightened firebox to accomodate the high-set pancake motor.  I am unsure of the history of early Bachmann 43xx; the chassis was considerably retooled to get rid of the pancake, but I am less certain of the bodyshell... 

 

There are other examples that seem almost to be deliberately tooled to be wrong.  I'm told that the Triang Hornby class 29 is inaccurate in practically every dimension; why would a company deliberately produce a model like that?  Even if it wasn't to be marketed to what we might think of as 'serious' modellers, why would they do that?  Even if you accept the generic height issue that affected all Triang, Triang Hornby, and 20th century Hornby models, surely it must have been just as easy to tool the bodyshell to the correct dimension as it was to tool it incorrectly? 

 

Irritating in the extreme, and thank goodness for current standards in RTR!

[andyman7]

On 28/10/2023 at 10:35, Tim-Hale said:

Hi,

 

Were all Kitmaster HO products made to 1:87?

 

Tim

 

No, the earlier releases were made to 00 (4mm) scale not 3.5mm which is correct for HO.

 

The only ones that were HO were the French Coach, the German Coach and the NYC Hudson.

 

On 28/10/2023 at 13:52, Steamport Southport said:

 

Wasn't it a case of it being planned by Kitmaster and Airfix released it after Kitmaster went bust?

 

http://www.airfixrailways.co.uk/Refrig.htm

 

That might explain the odd choice of a van that I don't think worked in the UK and the scale. Date of 1962 fits that scenario.

 

Similar thing happened after Airfix was taken over by Pailtoy with models such as the LNER N2 and GWR Dean Goods.

 

 

Jason

 

The Airfix Interfrigo has no relationship to Rosebud Kitmaster. It was a pure Airfix product. There were no wagons in the Kitmaster range with the exception of the RTR Motorised Box Van. Conversely, Airfix's rolling stock was predominantly wagons, with no coaches and only the Drewry Shunter and the Railbus falling outside this, at least until they acquired the Kitmaster tooling. 

 

4 hours ago, Il Grifone said:

AFAIK all the Continental locomotive kits were 00 scale (poor market research!). The coaches (one French and one German IIRC) were H0.

The NYC Hudson was also H0 scale.

All the British stock (locos, coaches and a motorised van (the same prototype as the Dublo one - possibly the same moulding?) were 00.

 

If the track gauge is to scale, it is extremely difficult to get the 'works' to fit in a scale body. It's often a problem on the prototype!

I don't think the motorised box van had any association with Dublo, The mechanism did bear a suspiciously close resemblance to the Triang motor bogie though!

[sncf231e]

2 hours ago, The Johnster said:

The reason for developing 00, 4mm/foot on 16.5mm track, was that it problematic in the 1930s (the time that commercial UK-outline RTR was being developed) to shoehorn mechanisms into the smaller space of UK prototype models than it was to do so with the European H0 models that the first 00 mechs were based on. 

That is a story which is often told, but is doubtful.

Already in 1924 Greenly set this standard:

He choose for the smaller gauges (1, 0, 00) a larger scale. As I remarked in my e-book on Gauge and Scale (http://sncf231e.nl/gauge-and-scale/): "One could question whether the gauge and the length, width and height of a train should all be scaled with the same proportion. Since wheel width and flanges in model trains are in general oversized, it might be a choice to “undersize” the gauge." A choice Greenly made.

Regards

Fred

[kevinlms]

But even the 15" gauge track of the Romney, Hythe & Dymchurch is wrong as the locos are to 1/3 scale. So it wasn't just the smaller scale models that ended up being not in proportion.

[DCB]

2 hours ago, sncf231e said:

That is a story which is often told, but is doubtful.

Already in 1924 Greenly set this standard:

 

He choose for the smaller gauges (1, 0, 00) a larger scale. As I remarked in my e-book on Gauge and Scale (http://sncf231e.nl/gauge-and-scale/): "One could question whether the gauge and the length, width and height of a train should all be scaled with the same proportion. Since wheel width and flanges in model trains are in general oversized, it might be a choice to “undersize” the gauge." A choice Greenly made.

Regards

Fred

 

 

That's  very interesting,  I had no idea 00 was that old.        The compromise concept is interesting,  OO manufacturers and modellers get their models criticised for under scale gauge far more than H0 modellers for often vastly over width models as the valve gear can't be made sufficiently robust and or cope with the side play needed for proprietary curves when made to scale...    Plus the Triang 2mm (?  I had 1mm in my mind) extra on buffer height .     I think Triang standardised UK  stock width so everything looked uniform, the 3F Tender is quite spectacularly over width.  Sadly the over height Triang stock spilled over into 00 mainstream with so many platforms being made to Triang Specs which makes the platforms level or higher than the buffer centre lines  ( Platform max 3ft buffers 3ft 3" to 3ft 6"

 

[Nick Holliday]

10 hours ago, sncf231e said:

That is a story which is often told, but is doubtful.

Already in 1924 Greenly set this standard:

He choose for the smaller gauges (1, 0, 00) a larger scale. As I remarked in my e-book on Gauge and Scale (http://sncf231e.nl/gauge-and-scale/): "One could question whether the gauge and the length, width and height of a train should all be scaled with the same proportion. Since wheel width and flanges in model trains are in general oversized, it might be a choice to “undersize” the gauge." A choice Greenly made.

Regards

Fred

Interesting that he give five eights of an inch as 00 gauge. This works out at something like 15.8 mm, even narrower than 16.5, so when did the current gauge become standard?

[sncf231e]

1 hour ago, Nick Holliday said:

Interesting that he give five eights of an inch as 00 gauge. This works out at something like 15.8 mm, even narrower than 16.5, so when did the current gauge become standard?

From my e-book http://sncf231e.nl/gauge-and-scale/: " It is generally acknowledged that the Bing Table Railway, introduced in a clockwork version in 1923 and in an electric version in 1925, was the first 00 railway. The terminology H0 was not then used. The scale of this table railway was undefined, but the size was such that a circle of track could easily be laid on a, not too small, round coffee or dinner table. The gauge was half of 0 gauge (32 mm) at approximately 16 mm. Later 16.5 mm was taken as standard gauge size for H0/00; the reason this figure is believed to be the profile of the wheels of the Bing Table Railway. These had a huge root radius which was fine on round-topped tinplate rails, but when modellers started making hand-built track, using brass bar for the rails, it was necessary to spread the gauge slightly to ensure the flat part of the tread was running on the flat rail surface (see also 3.1.4). "

Regards

Fred

[The Johnster]

Let's play 'what if'.  00 RTR developed by HD in the late 1930s and by Rovex a decade later was, by the 1960s, offering a good range of products and had moved into 2-rail.  Yet modellers of those days mostly ignored it, preferring kits or scratch building; Rovex Triang's wheel profiles wouldn't run on flexible track anyway.  This was because the RTR models were often incorrectly sized for the scale; too high, too wide, on completely wrong generic underframes and bogies, and crudely detailed.  Yet these same 'serious' modellers who ignored RTR adopted 00 standards without demur.  By the end of the 70s, the RTR scene had changed completely, with new manufacturers entering the fray with much better scaled and detail (some of the mechs wanted 'ittin' wiv a big 'ammer, but that's another story).

 

One of the new players, Lima, dabbled in Brit-outline H0 but fairly rapidly took to 00.  'What it' they'd persisted and achieved enough momentum for Airfix and Mainline to join in!  Would the default now be H0? 

 

I'd suggest that this alternative history scenario would have led to Hornby becoming more marginalised into their traditional train set niche and never really adapting to the 'hobby' trend for more detail, daylight visible where it should be instead of gears and motors, better scale fidelity, and detail below the running plates.  They would have withdrawn altogether from the new British H0 genre, and would not exist in the form that we now know.  They would probably have gone under and 'we' wouldn't have missed them much. 

 

I would think that the macro-economic problems that drove production to China would have done so anyway, but H0 Brit-outliine RTR in the 80s would have had some serious problems, especially steam outline.  Pancake motors mounted transversly were the order of the day, and even in 4mm scale some distortion of fireboxes was needed to shoehorn them in.  Concealing tender drives under heaps of coal in smaller tenders would have been an issue as well (remember the mountain in the Airfix Dean Goods tender?).  In fact, despite technological advances, the same reasons for adopting 00 for Brit-outline modelling still existed and still exist.  This would have generated a strong 00 reactionary movement within the hobby! 

 

It now becomes moot that the trend to British H0 would have survived.  It would of necessity be predicated on scale fidelity and detail (not early LIma's strongest points) for it to have stood a chance of 'us' supporting it, and the pancakes would have to have been an early casualty.  The answer would have been the same as it was in reality timeline 00, can motors driving through worms and idler gears, but would this have been viable at an acceptable market price in the 90s, which is the period in which the hobby's current popularity is rooted IMHO?.  Would the hardware have been available?

 

Or, if the UK 'hobby' market had adopted H0 RTR and it had not taken off because of the poor performance of the pancakes, would the hobby exist in it's current form at all?  What would have survived would perhaps have been the 60s/70s hobby kit scene, in 00.

 

This 'what if' exercise illustrates the strength of the hold 00 has in the British hobby.  It is loco-centric, and does not address an alternative 'what if'; what if the late 70s newcomers had gone with a more scale approach to track, a more acceptable EM or even 18.83 coarse scale approach?  That, I believe, was the big missed opportunity, and the hobby would be better now for it.  But there is still an elephant in the room, and it is in a red box; what about Hornby?  They'd have, I contend, stuck with 00 in any event, and probably never have bothered with those hi-fi 20th century models that they produced.  In this scenario, Hornby probably convert to TT in the 1990s, probably reviving 3mm/foot, and fairly crude and trainsetty.

 

We moan about the 00 compromise, typical British half *rsed fudgery that it is, but for all it's drawbacks it's served us well and promoted the very healthy RTR world the overwhelming majority of us now enjoy,  Curses! 

[Il Grifone]

I had forgotten the headstocks on the Kitmaster van body. The rest is almost identical however (as it should be, as they are models of the same van). Does the Kitmaster have the raised section for the wagon number?* Neither of mine is to hand. The works on te other hand cetainly resembles the TRi-ang bogie. The main difference is that the magnet/brush assembly flops about. Curbing this tendency improves things considerably.

As stated the 00 gauge was originally 5/8" and early Märklin track is to this gauge. Dublo stock is allergic to it! (It's obvious where their track design (and weird ballast colour) came from.)

*If they had made the strapping more to scale thickness, this feature would have been unnecessary (and I wouldn't have to file it off!).

 

We shouldn;t forget Rivarossi's ill-starred 1/80 (ish)* essay in the eighties. This would have sold very well in proper 00 scale (I would probably have bought one despite it being LMS!)

*Their scale for Italian prototypes too. I have two collections of Italian stock (covering different periods (epochs in newspeak) as a result. (They are incompatible in other areas too - couplings for one.)

 

 

Edited March 19 by Il Grifone
'outer' should have been 'other' - Grifone senility strikes again!

[41516]

33 minutes ago, Il Grifone said:

Does the Kitmaster have the raised section for the wagon number?* Neither of mine is to hand.

 

Yes, they do. My boxed one is also....somewhere safe... so here's a spare. 

 

[kevinlms]

19 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Let's play 'what if'.  00 RTR developed by HD in the late 1930s and by Rovex a decade later was, by the 1960s, offering a good range of products and had moved into 2-rail.  Yet modellers of those days mostly ignored it, preferring kits or scratch building; Rovex Triang's wheel profiles wouldn't run on flexible track anyway.  This was because the RTR models were often incorrectly sized for the scale; too high, too wide, on completely wrong generic underframes and bogies, and crudely detailed.  Yet these same 'serious' modellers who ignored RTR adopted 00 standards without demur.  By the end of the 70s, the RTR scene had changed completely, with new manufacturers entering the fray with much better scaled and detail (some of the mechs wanted 'ittin' wiv a big 'ammer, but that's another story).

 

One of the new players, Lima, dabbled in Brit-outline H0 but fairly rapidly took to 00.  'What it' they'd persisted and achieved enough momentum for Airfix and Mainline to join in!  Would the default now be H0? 

 

I'd suggest that this alternative history scenario would have led to Hornby becoming more marginalised into their traditional train set niche and never really adapting to the 'hobby' trend for more detail, daylight visible where it should be instead of gears and motors, better scale fidelity, and detail below the running plates.  They would have withdrawn altogether from the new British H0 genre, and would not exist in the form that we now know.  They would probably have gone under and 'we' wouldn't have missed them much. 

 

I would think that the macro-economic problems that drove production to China would have done so anyway, but H0 Brit-outliine RTR in the 80s would have had some serious problems, especially steam outline.  Pancake motors mounted transversly were the order of the day, and even in 4mm scale some distortion of fireboxes was needed to shoehorn them in.  Concealing tender drives under heaps of coal in smaller tenders would have been an issue as well (remember the mountain in the Airfix Dean Goods tender?).  In fact, despite technological advances, the same reasons for adopting 00 for Brit-outline modelling still existed and still exist.  This would have generated a strong 00 reactionary movement within the hobby! 

 

It now becomes moot that the trend to British H0 would have survived.  It would of necessity be predicated on scale fidelity and detail (not early LIma's strongest points) for it to have stood a chance of 'us' supporting it, and the pancakes would have to have been an early casualty.  The answer would have been the same as it was in reality timeline 00, can motors driving through worms and idler gears, but would this have been viable at an acceptable market price in the 90s, which is the period in which the hobby's current popularity is rooted IMHO?.  Would the hardware have been available?

 

Or, if the UK 'hobby' market had adopted H0 RTR and it had not taken off because of the poor performance of the pancakes, would the hobby exist in it's current form at all?  What would have survived would perhaps have been the 60s/70s hobby kit scene, in 00.

 

This 'what if' exercise illustrates the strength of the hold 00 has in the British hobby.  It is loco-centric, and does not address an alternative 'what if'; what if the late 70s newcomers had gone with a more scale approach to track, a more acceptable EM or even 18.83 coarse scale approach?  That, I believe, was the big missed opportunity, and the hobby would be better now for it.  But there is still an elephant in the room, and it is in a red box; what about Hornby?  They'd have, I contend, stuck with 00 in any event, and probably never have bothered with those hi-fi 20th century models that they produced.  In this scenario, Hornby probably convert to TT in the 1990s, probably reviving 3mm/foot, and fairly crude and trainsetty.

 

We moan about the 00 compromise, typical British half *rsed fudgery that it is, but for all it's drawbacks it's served us well and promoted the very healthy RTR world the overwhelming majority of us now enjoy,  Curses! 

The problem is that none of the HO models were to anything approaching to reasonable HO scale. They were all distorted noticeably, thus making them unbuyable.

When the Rivarossi Royal Scot came out, I went into the local model shop anticipating coming out with one, based on what I'd seen in a catalogue or similar. On seeing it and the coaches in the flesh, I baulked at them, because they were wide and squat and despite the nice paint job, too much needing doing for the money. So I came out empty handed and disappointed!

 

Fact is no one did British HO properly. The exception being a Precision Scale Models Flying Scotsman, but they were serious money, being limited edition brass. It was meant to be the first of 4 representing the Big 4, but the only one to see the light of day.

 

https://brassdepartment.com/models/precision-scale-models-psm-lner-class-a3-flying-scotsman-4472-steam-locomotiveusd-1650-00/

[Il Grifone]

1 hour ago, kevinlms said:

The problem is that none of the HO models were to anything approaching to reasonable HO scale. They were all distorted noticeably, thus making them unbuyable.

When the Rivarossi Royal Scot came out, I went into the local model shop anticipating coming out with one, based on what I'd seen in a catalogue or similar. On seeing it and the coaches in the flesh, I baulked at them, because they were wide and squat and despite the nice paint job, too much needing doing for the money. So I came out empty handed and disappointed!

 

Fact is no one did British HO properly. The exception being a Precision Scale Models Flying Scotsman, but they were serious money, being limited edition brass. It was meant to be the first of 4 representing the Big 4, but the only one to see the light of day.

 

https://brassdepartment.com/models/precision-scale-models-psm-lner-class-a3-flying-scotsman-4472-steam-locomotiveusd-1650-00/

 

Yet more lack of market research! Who would want a locomotive in a scale hardly anyone uses. I suppose in Australia things might be different?

The inability to model Walschaerts valve gear correctly makes one wonder what else is wrong.

(They are not alone in this of course. Yes Hornby, I do mean you....)

Edited October 31, 2023 by Il Grifone
I should have followed the link first!