i have regularly commented on here regarding henry's design plus had a private correspondence with neil regarding same and comments henry made on the Simplex 'double acting' axlepump. i have received quite a correspondence of emails re criticism of henry's loco design.

i received the following email from dianne carney regarding what i hoped were points that would avoid newcomers to the hobby getting caught out on the last issue of ME re this design (regulator steam pipe size being no longer obtainable, and omission of 'O' ring on wet header flange)

"He has designed a small locomotive, suitable for a novice model engineer with limited facilities, that can be easily transported and which has some 'appearance' to it. His description is well written and easy to understand, the design has been proved and the engine runs very well. I think that for you to describe another model engineer's work as rubbish says more about you than Henry."

anyone else care to comment publically on this current design compared with the likes of roy amesbury, don young, peter rich, neville evans, and martin evans?

the details of the design are far inferior to don young's Railmotor 46 years ago in 1968! a recent mishap re the omission of the 'O' ring on the wet header is but a long list of errors.

plus i think the cylinders are way over size for the boiler size.

ive built 7 locos including one that came 3rd in IMLEC in 1995.

cheers,

julian

that's just great!

let's just assume anything published in ME now is as good as before and not allow any constructive criticism to avoid tyros getting stuck!

so much for progress!

cheers,

julian

I'm going to move Henry's first post to another thread as I fear it will get lost in this thread which could be along one.

J

PS I see at least two of out suppliers lists the size tube said to be obsolete. Even if it was whats to stop you drilling out a bit of bar, its not that long.

Edited By JasonB on 28/05/2014 07:50:18

i should point out that the 'retrograde rubbish' comment was a made privately in an email and it was dianne who decided to repeat same and publish on here, also in response to a private made comments by me in an email pointing out errors in the design for the avoidance of problems that newcomers would encounter.

cheers,

julian

Just to clarify a point, the 'private correspondence' with me did ask me to raise the matter with Diane.

Neil