AJC
Western Thunderer
Something from the same source - but a little more protracted - is this Mermaid. One of Cambrian's most ambitious kits, once you've worked out how to assemble the chassis square, it's actually quite straightforward though it's taken a bit of thinking time. It's not remotely in the same league as something from Finney of @jjnewitt but it shares the same intent: to produce a detailed, buildable replica of the real thing. It's just in a different medium. The design of the kit is also about 30 or so years old...
From underneath the key challenges are obvious: the tiny surface area of the joints is apparent, as is the reinforcement in each corner, at the end of spars and even the vacuum cylinder is structural!
More gubbins added and with them, a bit more strength. This would be easier if the framing was full depth - I've had to build the height up with 40 thou' sheet to mount the vac' pipe level with the bottom of the headstocks. The reason is something to do with the size of the injection moulding machine employed when the kit was engineered in the '80s. @Colin Parks who made the moulds (and scratchbuilds some magnificent EMUs), tells me that this was at the limit of what he and his brother could do with regard to part size, complexity, and mould pressures and temperatures. In other words, like all these things, it's a trade off and a more or less scale version of these complex wagons in moulded plastic would still be tricky. Though there has been some whinging about the complexity of this and other Cambrian kits they have two things going for them. The parts go together and include pretty much all the detail of the prototype. They can be built consistently square. It's still better that the RTR equivalent (good photos available over there) in terms of detail and accuracy [RCH rather than BR type W irons, naff buffers, over think bottom flange to the solebar and so on].
Weight is another issue, but the Mermaid has plenty of space under the floor. The white brakeshoe is my fault as I've lost one of the moulded ones and thus replaced it with a new one cut from 40 thou'.
Adam
From underneath the key challenges are obvious: the tiny surface area of the joints is apparent, as is the reinforcement in each corner, at the end of spars and even the vacuum cylinder is structural!
More gubbins added and with them, a bit more strength. This would be easier if the framing was full depth - I've had to build the height up with 40 thou' sheet to mount the vac' pipe level with the bottom of the headstocks. The reason is something to do with the size of the injection moulding machine employed when the kit was engineered in the '80s. @Colin Parks who made the moulds (and scratchbuilds some magnificent EMUs), tells me that this was at the limit of what he and his brother could do with regard to part size, complexity, and mould pressures and temperatures. In other words, like all these things, it's a trade off and a more or less scale version of these complex wagons in moulded plastic would still be tricky. Though there has been some whinging about the complexity of this and other Cambrian kits they have two things going for them. The parts go together and include pretty much all the detail of the prototype. They can be built consistently square. It's still better that the RTR equivalent (good photos available over there) in terms of detail and accuracy [RCH rather than BR type W irons, naff buffers, over think bottom flange to the solebar and so on].
Weight is another issue, but the Mermaid has plenty of space under the floor. The white brakeshoe is my fault as I've lost one of the moulded ones and thus replaced it with a new one cut from 40 thou'.
Adam
Last edited:
