My collection of old Model Engineer Magazines is full of gaps. Too often I end up wondering what happened next, as with this example.
ME January 15 1964 carried an 8-page fold-out drawing of a 3½" gauge 0-4-0 Contractors' type tank engine called Hackfly. I don't have a copy.
I do have a copy of ME №3292 4 March 1966 in which LBSC writes of Hackfly: 'it was one of the worst designs that I had seen, and that if anybody built an engine to the published specification, and got it to work, it would be a miracle!'
LBSC then proceeds to 'put the boot in' under the following headings. I've added some quotes to give the flavour:
- Not a Giesel Ejector – 'clear proof of inexperience in boiler design'
- Boiler – 'badly proportioned', 'The designer's statement about super-heaters is entirely erroneous'
- Boiler Fittings – 'as to the dome – it's just too awful for words!', 'No boiler inspector in his right mind would pass … "safety" valves consisting of …
- Cylinders and Motion – 'The arrangement of cylinders and motion is absolutely the worst and most inefficient I have ever seen, and that's saying a mouthful.'
Now my problem is that I don't know what happened next. I suspect what LBSC said about Hackfly was controversial. Unfortunately I don't have any more magazines from 1966.
LBSC's piece is from what I call his 'grumpy' period. Early LBSC is light, friendly chat full of convincing technical advice. Late LBSC is often thin sour stuff, relying heavily on colourful claims of experience rather than logical answers to good questions. In the Hackfly article I find it hard to tell if LBSC is making valid points or simply indulging himself in a mix of abuse and grey drizzle!
Was Hackfly a truly dreadful design, or is LBSC throwing a tantrum? Did Hackfly's designer, a Mr H J Turpin, or anyone else respond to LBSC's comments? Did anyone ever build a Hackfly and how well did it run?
It's as if I've read a truly exciting detective story only to find the last chapter missing. Can anyone help?
Dave