What I see is a subtle dig at the accuracy of LBSC's published drawings and the efficacy thereof ……..

Applies to a few other designers too.

I have no idea what is behind this resurrection of their old argument, but I have had experience of a 7.25" version of Juliet built as a club project and I have the drawings for Maid of Kent, the latter with both Lawrence and Harris motion-work options.

I also leant to drive miniature locomotives in the late-1960s on a Maid of Kent built and owned by the society before my time, almost certainly to LBSC's drawings unless its Joy Gear option was Harris' modification.

'

Whoever built our Juliet's chassis simply doubled the dimensions but largely kept to the original arrangement. The completed loco ran very well on heavy portable track duty for several years; and its eventual failure in service exposed the main weakness in LBSC's design.

It had nothing to do with ports, valve settings and the like, but mainly and simply that the valve-rod clevis was suspended from a single-sided link swinging on a pin affixed to the frame. Consequently, accumulated wear meant the motion was doing more waggling in fresh air than anything useful. Rebuilt with large valve-spindle guides bolted to the stretcher, and better connections to the expansion-links, the engine ran for a good number of years more perfectly well; the original steel boiler was later replaced by one built by Reg. Chambers, specially and his last, as he was a member of our society – and Julia is now in my ownership awaiting freer times and a boiler-test. (Anyone have a spare Round Tuit available?)

Julia was actually LBSC's own light-hearted suggestion in the original "words & music", after a number of people had suggested a doubled-up version.

'

And the Maid? I think Harris revised the port dimensions and eccentrics for the Stephenson's Link Motion option, but otherwise basically improved the mechanical details, as above.

The society's Maid was very well built and ran very well. Unless as I asked above, its Joy gear option was to Harris' idea and design, it would probably have been largely faithful to LBSC's drawings, though with some minor tweaks like 'Tufnol' manifold-valve hand-wheels. It was also name-plated Maid of Athens; I know not why but still sometimes wonder where "she" went and hope she is still happily running.

'

I know it is now fashionable to deride weaknesses more than celebrate strengths of the dearly-departed, and I know 'Curly' Lawrence had reputations; but is anyone fault-free? I am also aware there are many anecdotes of errors in published designs not being corrected by some other designers.

Let us remember though that although LBSC's design details might bear improvements in the light of accumulated model-engineering experience since, LBSC and most of his contemporaries had far more basic workshops and far less of that accumulated knowledge than available now. Yet he built many locos that worked, and many model-engineers have followed his "words & music" equally successfully.

The hobby had to start somewhere; and improving designs and processes is a central tenet of Engineering.

If LBSC ever did make any of his engines they certainly were not to the dimensions given on the drawings !

KH could have nailed him to the floor with that specification.