Hi Baza, I've sent you a copy of the pictures.

For anyone else who's interested, the total size of the 7 pages is 1MB. To keep the email size down, I don't mind sending a subset of the pages. They are as follows:

Page
233: Location plan north and east (stones 27 and 60 are on this plan)
234: Location plan south and west (stones 53, 54 and 56 are on this plan)
250: Stone 60 (northernmost trilithon)
252: Stones 53 and 54 (southernmost trilithon)
253: Stone 27 (northernmost of outer sarsens, the one I traced previously)
254: Plan of Gowland's 1902 excavation of stone 56
255: Sections of Gowland's 1902 excavation of stone 56

In my previous trip to the library I had not been aware that stone 56 was the one that the BBC had used for their profile and also, because the drawings were from a much earlier (1902) excavation I had only given them a cursory glance. However, on closer inspection it would appear that the SW (outer) face of this hole is almost vertical, whereas the NE (inner) side is almost totally filled with rubble. The funny thing is that the section through the fallen sister stone 55 seems to indicate that it had very little anchorage at all. I guess that's why it fell.

The vertical outer face of the hole and the wide open inner side would work perfectly for dropping the stone in vertically from the outside, provided we used a timber shore to prevent the stone from overshooting. However, this does not appear to be the case for other holes such as 53/54.