I would like to add a couple of observations about LBSC's writing.
It was a very sparse writing style in comparison to most modern ME writers. He never/rarely mentioned problems, assuming the reader was competent to anticipate, avoid or work around them. A great deal was left for the reader to work out for themselves. I have a TEE reprint of the articles describing the 'Rainhill' build. 14 pages covering the boiler, chassis, cylinders, wheels, reversing gear and tender. That is not a great deal of description by modern standards. No one part is adequately detailed by modern engineering standards, either, but there is enough info for anyone competent to make the loco & get it running.
The other side of the sparsity of his writing is the confidence he instilled. As problems are not mentioned, they cannot possibly exist. So, with the blithe confidence of the truly ignorant, either you fall into every bear pit there is, or you sail through and nothing goes wrong.
All-in-all I enjoy reading his work, but would rather make a Greenly design. Greenly was a real engineer & has all the explanations at his fingertips – he knew his stuff to a depth that feels lacking with Curly. However, Greenly sometimes lost sight of the fact he was making a model & ifull size practice is not necessarily transferrable to a model and his writings lacked the self-confident 'bounce' of LBSC's.
Regards,
Richard