My Mistake

I apologise in advance if there are no renderings to accompany this post- which will be kind of wordy.

I must confess I have gravely under estimated the prowess of one Curly Lawrence, to a degree which also adds to the awe-inspiring heights of his work.

The number I had once been given was around 166 designs, which seemed plausible. These days, I would place that number north of 300. To establish a few things, here is how I plan on counting variants:

1. Different valve gears for the same locomotive. (Pamela as a Baker or Walschaerts, or an increased or decrease cylinder count)

2. Different wheel configurations for the same locomotive (eg: Austere Ada as a 2-8-0 vs. 2-10-0)

3. Different boilers (flues vs. water tubes, etc.)

4. Different prototypes- same design as an American locomotive or British.

5. Different scales (this is the one that will be the death of me)

So, for example, Curly did have provisions for three different boilers on three different valve gears of Tich. Ergo, that would mean that there are nine possible configurations of the Tich since theoretically the locomotive could be built to any of those possible combinations.

Granted, that doesn't mean the Dot, which is a scaled down variant of the Doris will count as having all the valve gears the Doris could have, since it was expressly described as being slip eccentric.

Now, there are some instances where there is a few parts that Curly has described, such as a 5" gauge Doris's cylinders. I'm not sure if I would count that as being enough information to say that he did design a five inch gauge version of the Doris.

With all of this in mind- plus the fact he would explain how something could be modified (damn the Caterpillar being totally workable as a 4-8-2 and 4-10-2 as well) and even making drawings for this, the number of locomotives Curly designed is certainly going to be on the rise.

What this all means for me is that I have to be much much more thorough than I thought I was going to have to be. The idea of just being able to skim through magazines and find the designs that are missing or lost is off the table.

I think that it's safe to say that I am going to need to get my small hands on every last article that Curly has ever written as well- he had a way of sneaking in a boiler drawing (Ivy Hall and it's equally ugly gauge 1 twin) with an information bureau or lobby chat article that is enough to make someone with any degree of meticulousness in their nature explode.

At this point I can't even honestly say which locomotives I would be drawing. Literally there are going to be a lot more than I thought.

When it comes to drawings the parts- there is something I have discovered about Netta that has been a huge help:

When it doubt, copy Netta.

For example, the drawings for the Bass that I have are not that good, especially when it comes to the rods. The critical dimensions are present, but the rest is left to the imagination. When I am left with something that open ended, I found that Netta with a lot of small parts does generally work well as a filler when things are murky and not mechanically critical- since Netta is described in all five gauges.

In the beginning I have put out a lot of drawings, but now I realise I was more or less eating the icing on the cake. I am going to need to slow down A LOT and accept that this could end up actually taking years to complete- more years than I expected. Thankfully I have been able to source a fair number of Model Engineer magazines- I will need a lot more for some of the earlier stuff, and I have a great group of people I can turn to for support through this monster of a project.

I just hope that my work when its all over is of good quality and helps model engineers in some way or form.

One a final note, has anyone here EVER been able to find English Mechanics on eBay?! I never seem to find anything about it- ever!

On a totally serious note:

If I have to buy every last copy of Model Engineer or English Mechanics Curly wrote in to complete this preservation project THOROUGHLY I will. I try not to ever shy away from challenges, and the word quit has zero meaning to me.

If anyone here knows a good psychiatrist please direct me to them.

Just do what you can when you can, and don't get obsessed with "100% finishing" a project

If ME has taught me anything it's patience, you've only been doing this on here since August

My computer has been running pretty much at 80-100% 24/7 for 18 months on a couple of ME projects, Model Engineering is a long game subject, don't sicken yourself with it

Don't forget to enjoy life, Get a dog, get a woman, drink beer in good company and fit your project in around your life, not the other way about

Whatever you do, make sure your parts are complete, so someone can pick it up and run with it if you fall away for unknown reasons

GL

(ps will keep a lookout for EM stuff)

Edited By Ady1 on 22/11/2017 08:34:45

You can get most of the EM stuff here, it looks like it's been OCR'd (text searchable)

There are a few publications with similar sounding names between 1880-1950 which came and went so watch out for similar sounding Engineering Magazine stuff which may not be what you are seeking, or has been misquoted and is what you are seeking (kinda thing)

Hi Dean

I fear burnout and lots of good work disappearing due to frustration. Some thoughts:

• Break it up into a series of sub-challenges, such as all the WW2 'blackout locos - Bat, Owl...)
• See finishing each challenge as a success in itself rather than as a step on a long journey.
• Have libraries of parts that come up over and again, such as his simple hand pump in sizes suitable for each gauge, so you can drop.
• Consider collaborating if you can find someone of similar mind who is willing and able to work to the same standards.

Just compiling the most complete list ever of his designs would be an achievement in itself.

Why not create a website for the project, perhaps even an LBSC wiki.

Neil

The link above also has this page which may or may not be the same magazine, the volumes are a bit confusing

I think there was a bit of a splurge of stuff from multiple sources at some point, much of which faded into the mists of history

Here's an ebay entry with

English Mechanic And World Of Science: With Which Are Incorporated "the Mechanic", "scientific Opinion," And The "British And Foreign Mechanic."

Edited By Ady1 on 22/11/2017 08:55:34

What an interesting post to read over breakfast!

I think you're doing something new, not just capturing designs, but cataloguing, analysing and cross-comparing the build detail of the whole of LBSC's output. By using CAD to implement the plans, you are able to find errors, gaps, inconsistencies etc that would otherwise only be found by building real engines, and no-one has ever done that or written down what they found. Your point about Netta is insightful.

LBSC was a real person with human failings. The young Curly was a revolutionary, old Curly was very set in his ways. Looking at samples of Curly's work, I've seen articles that fully justify his 'words and music' claim, but also many with just the music, some decidedly thin, and - particularly at the end - technically empty attacks on anyone daring to question mistakes or suggest improvements.

I think there's quite a gap between what Curly put in print and what was actually made. Several of his engines were/are extremely popular. Others, especially the variants, might never have been built at all.

There's a danger you might bog down exploring variations . It may be helpful to triage what you're doing. I'm pretty sure I've seen a list of the engines Curly actually made and completed himself. They probably represent the core of his work and would be a good place to start. Then there are the engines he designed or suggested that were built by others. Then the variations of gauge, boilers, valve-gear etc. I suspect there's a fourth category: engine outlines, theories, shorts, partial and unfinished work etc, never taken forward by anyone.

I think what you're doing is a voyage of discovery. One way of keeping focus is to note variations as you find them, returning later when you have time. Just a suggestion because I don't know how you work best! For example, you might find it easier to produce 3 different gauge designs for the same engine while the details are fresh in your mind rather than returning later to capture the one that was never built.

I'll have a look for the list of engines LBSC actually built. In an old ME, I think, possibly dating to when he died, but might be more recent? Does anyone else know what I'm thinking of?

Excellent work Dean; have you thought there might be a book in this?

Dave

Dean,

I will confess 'up-front' that I have no particular interest in LBSC's designs.

... That might make me unworthy to comment; but I feel the need to do so.

I have been awestruck by the work you are doing ... Not because you are 'building' the LBSC collection, but because you are 'building' a family of designs, and revealing the DNA that is shared within that family.

It wouldn't really matter to me what you were modelling ... it's the methodical approach and the dedication to your work that impresses me. Others will doubtless benefit from the LBSC work; but I am happy to simply admire the fact that you are doing it so thoroughly.

More power to your elbow, Sir.

MichaelG.

Right now I am mostly concerned about taking care of the content from Model Engineer.
That will be the easier one with the greater amount of LBSC's work in it.

I do plan on starting a webpage, and as far as the challenges and parts sharing is concerned I have decided to do something like that already.

Not to mention to a degree also not feeling any pressure in terms of time lines to get this all done.

Dave,

The one thing that has surprised me from the stand point of doing CAD is how few errors I have found in LBSC's designs. There are errors sure, but I have found way more in other designs that have been far more popular than some of his (at least in the US) alas, for what it's worth I am impressed by his plans quality over all- usually. Some of the early stuff has been a pain.

I fully understand what you are saying about the variants- for example I am not under ANY circumstances going to draft a whole locomotive (especially the 5" gauge fair- save for the Minx) just because of a valve gear, boiler or the like. As far as the master list of his designs it will be there sure, but spending countless hours on the computer drafting it is out of the question.

There is a shockingly large number of his own designs that Curly never built. He never built Doris- for example. If I remember correctly I don't think he built any of his 5" gauge designs either.

The designs I am most concerned about are the ones that had their own build series and have fallen into obscurity. One article bits about rescaling aren't THAT big of a concern to me, some I might draft, but as long as I have them, know where to find the info in this growing archive of mine and at least put it down on the list of Curly designs I'm fine with not drafting it- unless someone asks for it or I get bored.

As far as the analysis is concerned it's not really that much of a priority, finding shared castings is more of a priority to me, however.

I have thought about a book- in fact I am sure it will happen.
I am beginning to start to have an idea of a "standard Curly template" that could be applied to almost any steam locomotive.

Sometimes I wonder if I am in need of psychiatric care while I am delving into this project.
There is a lot there, and I am sure that I will end up finding other things that strike my fancy.

There was mention of a dog- I can do one better:

I have two, which combined weigh over 200 pounds.

One thing (as far as the DNA of the designs go) that I have noticed is that Curly was very good about reusing the outline of an old design for something new later on down the road.

Case in point: Sister Dora, Petrolea, Rose, Mabel, they bear striking resemblance to one another. Then there is the Bass family and Miss Therm, same engine with just an extra pair of wheels squeezed in there.

What I think that Curly did a lot of was recycling design elements rather than the whole design of the locomotive- I could be wrong- but I have a good hunch that's the case. I don't think that it was always done out of laziness, but rather I think that Curly preferred to keep things simple and to use a known good rather than trying to reinvent the wheel. To that extent, he was on the right path.

As far as basically reusing the same design for a locomotive over and over again I think it was more along the lines of designing a whole new locomotive from scratch was far from an easy task even for him, and often a few simple changes to a design was enough to transform it into something that was different enough from the parent design to really pique people's interest. A good case in point with this would be Doris and Dot.

I also think that he tried to make his locomotives have as broad of an appeal as possible, which is why I believe he did a lot of rescaling work and also (especially in the case of the Titfield Thunderbolt) would go so far as to include a slip eccentric version along with the gab version of the locomotive) tried to create appeal for locomotives across the skill levels- from difficult to simple.

Even as far as I am concerned as making locomotives that were for people that were more interested in being very realistic (Britannia is a notable example of this) to locomotives that I would wager were more or less built for the joy of operating a steam engine.

I really like gauge 1, so the lost gauge 1 designs will be the ones that I perk up to the most. I might end up building Zoe even.

Granted, it should be noted too that I am not drawing anything that the engineering drawings can be purchased from the likes of Reeves or Kennions.

Those designs are not missing, lost or anything of the sort but out there for everyone to purchase if they feel so inclined.

If I do draw them it's because I felt like it! Which may happen with the "Three Old Ladies" as I call the Canterbury Lamb, Rainhill and Titfield Thunderbolt, Diana or Dot. 

Edited By Dean da Silva on 23/11/2017 06:11:30

Don't take lack of replies to mean I'm not enjoying following your train(s) of thought...

Neil

I had to read it twice before spotting you were pulling a fast one...

Quite a good idyll I think.

It adds to your list though - available in 5 scales - 5, 3.5, 2.5, 1 and O I think, although I have never seen one smaller than 2.5

Neil has a good idea of how to do it all above. Spread the load.

Edited By Clive India on 23/11/2017 09:07:17

Over the longer term a collaborative moderately able individual will achieve far far more than an uncollaborative genius who likes to do everything themselves

(I could show you a great example of this but it would be unfair to the individual concerned)

So just do what you can and make it easy to build upon by other enthusiasts, one of the greatest strengths of the human race is that at the end of the day we're all expendable (whether we like it or not)

GL

Dean,

More interesting observations to read at breakfast - thank you. All makes good sense to me and there's nothing to disagree with!

Fine line between madness and genius but I think you're OK, there's nothing wrong with ruthlessly exploiting your talents in a good cause. The dog on the left reminds me of my mother-in-law.

Cheers,

Dave