The design is basically weak, but does allow the tailstock to be closer to the spindle than my bolt on repair. If I were to make a replacement, it would be stronger by design, even if made from the same type of cast iron. The outer curve could be at a larger radius, with its centre to the left of the original, leaving the width at the centre the same. This would add more material to the ends of the curved section. The thickness of the outboard curved section in a vertical plane could be greater, the extra underneath would not restrict the tailstock or the movement, which is about 7" total.
I have no idea when the damage was done, or whether it was caused by overtightening the two compound holding bolts, or crashing into the tailstock. The reinforcement was accompanied by doubling the bolts to 4 and not tightening them as much. The lathe was due for scrapping when it was donated to the museum.
Thanks for all the suggestions and links, I will be finding out
I agree about the length, I had originally contemplated making the rear end a separate add on part to reduce the radius, but below 11" rad would reduce the length of the dovetail length more than I would like.