I agree that there's no doubt that the much-debated drawing was a
work-in-progress draft and shouldn't seriously be related to any final
product. The interesting thing, however, is how it ended up in Brisbane
with a (apparent) 1937 date on it. Maclean copiously shared thoughts with
his interstate and overseas counterparts, so no doubt many drawings found
their way around the traps. Perhaps there is also some correspondence in
the BCC archives. The influence of the Sydney design on the FM is
indisputable. I believe Sydney and Brisbane shared quite a bit, while
Melbourne and Adelaide went a different path, possibly talking to each
other a lot too.

In answer to Dudley's question, Maclean was by profession a draftsman,
though no doubt drawings like this were done by his staff. However, his
engineering knowledge was enough to gain him Associate membership of the
IEA.

Tony P
On Wednesday, 12 August 2020 at 11:42:33 UTC+10 Richard Youl wrote:

> I don’t think that anyone has shown this plan beside an actual R/R1 (or

> however they were designated) but this Ian Brady photo shows the plan to be

> a ’never was’. Note the 4 standard R windows and 2 smaller windows as

> opposed to, in the plan, 5 R class windows and one even smaller window.

>

> Regarding the debate about whether there was a bulkhead proposed in the

> ‘never was’, a plan of an actual R would show how the bulkhead was

> depicted.

>

> Regards,

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>