 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Models / September 2008Lathe change
I have a very old ML7 no gear box, no cross feed, no coolant. I am thinking of changing it but with what ? About same size but with gear box and cross feed, also would like to take bigger cuts. Any suggestions welcome >I have a very old ML7 no gear box, no cross feed, no coolant. I am thinking >of changing it but with what ? About same size but with gear box and cross >feed, also would like to take bigger cuts. Any suggestions welcome In order of likelyhood:- Boxford AUD Colchester Student Colchester Bantam Super 7B with cross feed Conny Sewer Hardinge HLV(-H if you can get it)) Probably lots of others. Whatever comes up on fleabay/goindustry/etc that looks to be acceptable Regards Mark Rand RTFM >>I have a very old ML7 no gear box, no cross feed, no coolant. I am thinking >>of changing it but with what ? About same size but with gear box and cross [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Whatever comes up on fleabay/goindustry/etc that looks to be acceptable I'm very happy with my Emco Maximat V10, which replaced a Super 7. Little bit larger, longer bed - and a simple mill attachment. Regards,  SignatureStephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations http://www.shwoodwind.co.uk Emails to: showard{who is at}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk >>I have a very old ML7 no gear box, no cross feed, no coolant. I am thinking >>of changing it but with what ? About same size but with gear box and cross [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Conny Sewer >Hardinge HLV(-H if you can get it)) Harrison L5? Colchester Chipmaster, if you can find a good'un, especially if the variator works. In fact, unless it's been rebuilt with a variable speed motor, it's essential that the variator works. very nice little lathe though, if in working order. The student is a bit big, compared with a Myford. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms... ------------------------------------------------\ >> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them. a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too! >>> I have a very old ML7 no gear box, no cross feed, no coolant. I am thinking >>> of changing it but with what ? About same size but with gear box and cross [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > The student is a bit big, compared with a Myford. They are *all* a bit big compared with a Myford. A Myford will fit comfortably on a tabletop - the rest won't. -- Peter Fairbrother >>>> I have a very old ML7 no gear box, no cross feed, no coolant. I am thinking >>>> of changing it but with what ? About same size but with gear box and cross [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >They are *all* a bit big compared with a Myford. A Myford will fit >comfortably on a tabletop - the rest won't. then again, most come with a nice solid stand, which is good. The boxfords, unless they're UD models, aren't necessarily on stands. I guess you could unbolt the student from it's stand/cabinet and put it on a table, if you had a strong enough table. The chipmaster is only 3x20, but it's well solid. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms... ------------------------------------------------\ >> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them. a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too! >The chipmaster is only 3x20, but it's well solid. I think you made a typo there<g>, as I'm sure it's 5.75" x 20", same as the Bantam. Peter >>The chipmaster is only 3x20, but it's well solid. > >I think you made a typo there<g>, as I'm sure it's 5.75" x 20", same >as the Bantam. yeah. 5x20. it says so on the machine, chances are it'll go a tad over 5. http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=140264039299 for example, although I'd be a bit wary of a noisy variator, although the advice give in the excellent lathes.co.uk (http://www.lathes.co.uk/chipmaster/) is a touch contradictory on this point - untoward noises are bad but they are "rarely silent". He goes on to suggest that they mostly end up being converted to electronic, and further describes someone who over-rated one to run at 4000 rpm. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms... ------------------------------------------------\ >> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them. a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too! >>>The chipmaster is only 3x20, but it's well solid. >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >He goes on to suggest that they mostly end up being converted to electronic, >and further describes someone who over-rated one to run at 4000 rpm. Aisde from being well made the Chipmaster has a good reduction from a back gear so a modern VFD works OK when the variator gives up. I've known it be done and work well although how good it'll be at 100rpm big cuts is open to debate - but if you're used to a Myford then it's a hypothetical worry Charles >>>> I have a very old ML7 no gear box, no cross feed, no coolant. I am thinking >>>> of changing it but with what ? About same size but with gear box and cross [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >-- Peter Fairbrother My sense of proportion might by slightly skewed by the fact that I migrated from my short bed ML7 to ex-father's long bed 7B (that he claimed to have bought for my 9th birthday :). Having fitted it to a stand, the other lathes _are_ bigger than it. But not necessarily vastly so. Case in point. The long bed ML7B is 24"x55" on its stand, the Hardinge HLV is 8" longer and 5" deeper. The reason for suggesting the "upgrade" is that the Myford weight in at 5cwt and the HLV tips the scales at half a long ton. Similarly with other "small industrial" lathes. That weight difference can make a big difference to the amount of swarf that you can produce in an evening. If one were really stuck on the concept of small enough to live on the table, then a gearbox and power crossfeed would be gilding the lily and wouldn't fit the last desire to take bigger cuts. Mark Rand RTFM >>>>> I have a very old ML7 no gear box, no cross feed, no coolant. I am thinking >>>>> of changing it but with what ? About same size but with gear box and cross [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > make a big difference to the amount of swarf that you can produce in an > evening. Nyah nyah nyah - of course I want a HLV-H, and I'd make room for one at a shot, but I can't afford more than a grand or so - which is unlikely. How many do you have now? sad and jealous :) BTW, do you still have any of that 95 mm dia black EN24T left? Can I buy 150 mm from you? > If one were really stuck on the concept of small enough to live on the table, > then a gearbox and power crossfeed would be gilding the lily and wouldn't fit > the last desire to take bigger cuts. Yuss. -- Peter Fairbrother >> Case in point. The long bed ML7B is 24"x55" on its stand, the Hardinge HLV is >> 8" longer and 5" deeper. The reason for suggesting the "upgrade" is that the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >a shot, but I can't afford more than a grand or so - which is unlikely. >How many do you have now? It's only an HLV and it cost me about £250 (plus two years so far rebuilding it without seeing it run yet...) > sad and jealous :) > >BTW, do you still have any of that 95 mm dia black EN24T left? Can I buy >150 mm from you? Still got some, but it's not EN24T, just EN24 i.e. Black and annealed. Doesn't machine as nicely as the heat treated EN24T, but doesn't affect the final result if it needs heat treating afterwards. I'll get a length in the post for Monday if you want. Mark Rand RTFM Snipped Interesting Stuff > It's only an HLV and it cost me about £250 (plus two years so far rebuilding > it without seeing it run yet...) > > Mark Rand > RTFM Mark, in reading your comment here I thought it must be at least 4 or 5 months since our last update on Dovetail grinding etc as related to "just an HLV". Have you made progress or indeed finished the bed re- build? Apologies if I have missed an update but family diversions make my forum access irregular at the moment. I am always on the lookout for such a machine (at a similar price :-)) but even if I fell over one at the moment I would lack the confidence that it can be "sorted" without spending something a fortune. Regards Keith (interested but impoverished of Wales) >Snipped Interesting Stuff > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >Keith (interested but impoverished of Wales) Keith One of the big benefits of a Hardinge is that the bed ways are removable and therefore easily taken off for regrinding. The fact that Mark chose to do it the hard way with an undersize surface grinder shouldn't put you off! Charles http://www.homeworkshop.org.uk On 6 Sep, 17:59, Charles Ping <charles.p...@littlewrongs.org.uk> wrote: > >Snipped Interesting Stuff > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Thanks Charles, I had forgotten that Mark chose the "advanced route" for his rebuild. I think that there was an issue with regard to the alignment of the dovetails being different from the alignment of bed location dowels so I was interested in how the bed once removed was aligned for grinding the dovetails given that they were obviously worn and wouldn't provide a datum. The problem I have is there are few local grinders with a machine large enough who will "fiddle about with these one off jobs" and even if they do they will only do exactly as they are told with no guarantee of accuracy, except for parallelism. Not that I have found a suitable machine candidate yet you understand, but I have (clears throat), found an HLV in the corner of a workshop that looks very unloved and "well worn" - at least that was what I told the guy who runs the place. :-) He just happened to mention that they could well be moving early in the New Year and was moaning that the scrap price might not hold up long enough for them to get anything for it once they are able to get it out. I did say that I might well be able to pay a bit more than that and clear it for free when the two bloody great CNCs that currently lock it in are moved. I will have to keep tabs on the place but don't at the moment want to appear too interested and haven't even looked close enough to see exactly which model it is. No, for anyone wondering, I can’t seem to remember exactly where the place is :-) Regards Keith >>Snipped Interesting Stuff >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > >Charles It's actually 6 months almost to the day since I started the bed regrind. I did the thickness and needed to take 6 thou off before I got below the wear marks. Once I'd done that I could measure the wear on the dovetails. One interesting thing that I discovered in so doing, was that the bed was not made parallel to the piece of metal it started off as. There are non-wearing vertical edges for the top 1/8" or so of the dovetails. The original plan had been to use these as references when regrinding the dovetails. Unfortunately, Messrs Hardinge put a 12 thou sideways slope on the dovetails with respect to these verticals :-(. I intend to regrind these vertical bits so that they are parallel to where the bed should be. I can get this alignment from the unworn parts of the dovetails at the very ends of the bed. The reason for correcting this original sloppiness is so that I can use a fence on the sine vice to align the bed. To align the bed to grind the verticals, I intend to accurately mount four datum blocks on the bottom of the bed and adjust them on the surface table until they're parallel to the correct line. Then I can mount the bed on the vertical sine vice on the grinder and adjust the alignment with a dial gauge against the datum blocks. Once I've ground one side, the other vertical edge side and the dovetails can be referenced from the ground-in-place fence of the sine vice. It should be noted that AFAICT, Hardinge never intended the beds to be reground. You're supposed to simply buy a new two piece bed and bolt it on. A minor issue is the fact that I don't actually have a sine vice. I'm in the process of making one based on a 6"x12" electromagnetic chuck that I have. Unfortunately, pressures of work, spending weekends and holidays trying to find the garden and stuff meant that I haven't yet finished the sine vice. The recent deluges handily stopped all garden reclamation work for the year :-) Then to add insult to injury, I got distracted by making an electrically heated salt bath to harden the apron gearbox gears. I spent a weekend hardening them. More time fitting them, toolpost grinding journals, grinding the width of some of them, finding that I hadn't allowed enough clearance for most of them, trimming some and re-making two (too hard to recut). Then discovering that Hardinge had originally bored some of the holes 3 thou too small for the needle roller bearings they were using (explained the undersize, shagged shaft though!) and so on. Note to self:- Next time fit dowels in the gearbox bearing holes and accurately measure the centre distances instead of making assumptions. Also don't trust that any hole was originally the right size, even if there is a bearing pressed into it :-( I've got one more gear to finish trimming to get the running clearance to a level that I'm happy with. Then after grinding the clutch bearing thrust races to fit and making new brush caps for the motor and cleaning that up, I'll be able to finally put the apron gearbox on the finished pile. Then I'll get back to the bed. There is progress, but it's not always in the right direction or speed. I really want to get the job finished so that I can get on to rebuilding the mill, which I was about to start before the HLV turned up! _ Mark Rand RTFM Thanks to all the answered the question. Now I have another one for owners of Boxford's, what are the like and which model is best. >>>Snipped Interesting Stuff >>> [quoted text clipped - 114 lines] > Mark Rand > RTFM > Thanks to all the answered the question. Now I have another one for owners > [quoted text clipped - 116 lines] > > Mark Rand > > RTFM Mark, Thank you for you description of work so far. I am sure it will be great when you have finished it. I fixed up my fairly worn Chipmaster in a more cruder way but it worked out very well. I posted what I did in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ColchesterLathe-User/message/1269 Here is an extract from it The bed was worn about .006" lower at the headstock end, that is the inverted vee for the saddle guide. I reasoned that the tailstock guide was less worn and dismantled the tailstock and used it as a guide for measuring wear. I used the tailstock base casting fitted with a clock gauge and read along the saddle vee, you get a reading showing the unworn section which is at the tailstock end. The plan is to remove metal from the unworn end and get a zero reading compared to the tailstock vee. I glued emery cloth to wooden slats and used them as files. Crude but it worked quite well. Perhaps diamond files might be better. The lathe can turn to .001" over about 12" now quite ok for me, and has now stiff travel for the saddle over the bed length. I have since gave it another going over and got it pretty good all over. Its old but still very good. Regards Alan > On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 17:59:51 +0100, Charles Ping > [quoted text clipped - 94 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Mark Thank you very much for taking the time to provide such a comprehensive insight to your rebuild, it has been extremely helpful to me. You have also covered some areas where I had concerns caused by stories I heard (20+ years ago) from the technicians that looked after such machines. Their belief, not just with HLV, was that while superbly engineered there was in fact a lot of "individual" fitting with each of these toolroom machines. They also had stories of a number of well engineered "fixes" that were obviously used to recover minor production errors. I have also encountered the undersize bearing housing in aerospace components, mainly to overcome the possibility of differential expansion but, on one occasion" the rep said that it allowed the use of cheaper "standard size" bearings and ground shafting. Apparently, if anything shafting would be slightly undersize, never oversize, with thin housing bearings the other way round; therefore a "small degree" of pre-load would always ensure a zero clearance bearing. In that instance it was not a problem as it was a very short life component. I can't see yours being for the same reason as I wouldn't think the production numbers were high enough. This was over 20 years ago and I suspect production tolerances of even basic items is much better nowadays. I must say that my confidence is not improved as your bed problems seem only a part of the issue. Perhaps I won't rush at a machine until I can have a good look at it, even if cheap. I suspect like you, once I owned it I would "have" to put it right no matter how long it took. I should really continue to use my present machines until I can out perform them rather than, as it is now, the other way round. Anyway thanks again Mark, best of luck in your rebuild - it will be all worthwhile in the end. Best regards Keith On 7 Sep, 00:57, jontom_...@hotmail.com wrote: > > On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 17:59:51 +0100, Charles Ping > [quoted text clipped - 132 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Getting old and somewhat able to stand back a bit, I wondered and wandered. I felt that I wasn't the only one here. The big question is just how much worn out crap is being discussed. At first glance, it suggests that more than one of you is the proud possessor of a worn out lathe. Assuming that the Myford ML7 has nothing worse than a worn bed, it can be fixed for a perhaps £35. If it has a worn spindle( as mine has) then it it is a different matter altogether. However, replacing a dodgy old Myford with a dodgier lathe which cannot be re furbished for less than the price of a tank of fuel is another matter. I may be rambling somewhat but I am the only one who has put a sort of price on my comments. Again, I have actually got to the end of a restoration project. Maybe there is another 'cost accountant' who will add his two pennorth. Meantime, my kind regards Norman On 7 Sep, 08:16, ravensworth2674 <nor...@n-atkinson.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote: > On 7 Sep, 00:57, jontom_...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 161 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Hello Norm, unlike you to "stand back" unless you have been somewhere exotic of course. While I take your point to a degree, the OP (Bill) has never indicated (in what limited information he has given us) that there is anything wrong with his "very old ML7" other than it has no gearbox, no PCF, no coolant and doesn't take big enough cuts (yes I know that might have eluded to problems but they weren't specified. The one other piece of information he gave us was that the replacement needed to be a similar size. I can't see how anyone given that limited information could have suggested anything other than the lathes mentioned. Although I asked about budget and critical requirements in my first response, Bill provided no further information. Your suggestion of rebuilding the ML7 while sound from a financial point of view (if that is important to him - he hasn't said) would not have provided, PCF, gearbox, coolant or the ability to take substantially larger cuts. While many of the suggestions I felt were for much larger machines that fell outside of one of his criteria he didn't come back in to the discussion to clarify his need, and I had asked him about available space as well. In fact, I though that the discussion although diverted to the issues of rebuilding an older but very high quality machine would be useful to indicate the type of work he might encounter if he took that course. I am also disappointed that Bill's subsequent question with regard to Boxfords is also, only in my opinion of course, too open to ensure that he gets reasonable advice. "What are they like" and "which model is best" creates more questions than answers, (big ugly things with turny bits everywhere??) and I for one can't answer that with any kind of reasonable advice. I know I am limited but I need to know, what’s it going to be used for, what materials will be used, what budget is available, is space an issue does it have to go onto a bench, is coolant or a gearbox vital, does he know enough about lathes to identify a reasonable machine etc etc etc. In short Norm, I think you are being a bit hard on us and the advice that Bill has been given to date. Unless of course what Bill really wants is for someone to offer him their own "perfect machine" that is absolutely idea for him. If that is the case he might just get what he deserves. If Bill reads this, apologies but such an open question gives us very little to go on and means that many machines that might be ideal for you are not mentioned at all. The question most often posed and impossible to answer is "I want a lathe, which is the best". Regards Grumpy of Wales On 7 Sep, 09:28, jontom_...@hotmail.com wrote: > On 7 Sep, 08:16, ravensworth2674 <nor...@n-atkinson.wanadoo.co.uk> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 195 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Keith, Of course we are both making assumptions because we both are 'wetting our fingers to find where North is' I was thinking of the late Kenneth C Hart who as Martin Cleeve wrote how he was made redundant and turned his hobby ML7 into a machine which would provide him with a tidy income- until his death. It's all there in 'Screwcutting in the Lathe' He seemed to manage--- and mentioned the Hardinge. Poor bugger couldn't afford a four jaw chuck but he still managed to work only part time! One thing is certain, he didn't swop an accurate machine for a cast off basket case no matter what it's antecedents were. Thinks???? Should we leave it at that. Nah! let's have a bit of a wind up. Years( who knows when) but I went for a Hardinge at an auction. Bugger was bankrupt- you know 2 years of good days and the bank manager was writing the 'obituary' on Stubbs Gazette. Anyway, it was sold for £6500 plus auctioneers charges etc. I was 'out' long before that. I still have the £6500 or thereabouts. I bought, you might think foolishly, a Castle in Spain. Its present value is rather more than the Hardinge. Quixotically, there are no Hardinge owners along 'our' street! Ah, well- can't win 'em all Cheers Norm In article <e01c53b9-3b3d-408b-8ada-3f41ad496eb9@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, jontom_1uk@hotmail.com writes > Your >suggestion of rebuilding the ML7 while sound from a financial point of >view (if that is important to him - he hasn't said) would not have >provided, PCF, gearbox, coolant or the ability to take substantially >larger cuts. Actually Keith, retro-fitting a Myford gearbox is quite feasible - I did mine over 20 years ago when my skill level was (even) lower than now. Of course, the price of the gearbox has risen and the OP might find it makes more economic sense to trade in the ML7 for a decent S7B with pxf. The price difference will probably be even more than the cost of the gearbox, but he will have a better machine and pxf. As an aside, pxf is the only thing I really miss on my older S7B. I do wish that someone would do a decent conversion kit. I have pondered this for many hours, and am convinced that a pivoted motor with worm on the apron front, driving a worm wheel fitted between the cross slide and handle, would in principle be quite feasible and not particularly obtrusive. Personal circumstances make it difficult for me to do a lot of trial-and-error development work at present though. David SignatureDavid Littlewood .David, Martin Cleeve did it. The write up was in ME in the 50's That was for his ML7. In an variation on a theme( apologies to Paganini) it is worth having a look at the Pools Major which had a power cross feed coming out of the lead screw and across the rear and onto another feed screw on the back and ito the saddle. I had one. Maybe lathes.co uk has enough on the subject. Another variation is a variable speed motor direct onto the feed screew. My 7 had a thingy on the leadscrew which was a 2880rpm, but double geared down . Mine was BOC but I recall that Parvalux had similar stuff.It is now on a mill drill! Romping away, Cleeve is worth digging into in a Club or Public Library for old ME's He also had a gear box.for his ML7 which came out of his earlier ML2/4. I'm now appreciating the recollections and hope that they may stir an interest. Vaguely, Cleeve was made redundant and used his converted ML7 to make special order screws. Gave him a better income than before! Cheers David- hope that my ramblings help Norm .Comments about late lamented Martin Cleeve are coming too fast for these arthritic fingers to catch up. Sorry! Some time back, i did get a lot of help to put Cleeve into the net. Sadly, Magicalia came in and that was the end of my aspirations there. Magicalia's promises are like pie crust! Unquestionably, Cleeve had simple and cheap solutions to many problems. Ramling on, there were fixed and running steadies. Milling arbours and here, Cleeve hadn't a mill. Again, he made a gear box out of bits and dividing gear etc etc. In no way, does this denigrate other worthies but it gives another approach. Today, with economic gloom facing many of you, it may be worth ML7 owners doing a private exchange of his information. Forgive me but my efforts failed and old age(78+) and infirmary( ?? ) have to be endured. Norm > Actually Keith, retro-fitting a Myford gearbox is quite feasible - I did > mine over 20 years ago when my skill level was (even) lower than now. Of > course, the price of the gearbox has risen and the OP might find it > makes more economic sense to trade in the ML7 for a decent S7B with pxf. > The price difference will probably be even more than the cost of the > gearbox, but he will have a better machine and pxf. Totally agree David, but as you say the economics don't make sense if you have to buy a gearbox at the current price. Even if you had a box spare then I suspect that selling it and the old ML7 might well raise enough to buy a fair S7 with PXF. There have been a couple of gearbox designs to build yourself but of course depend on you having a lathe capable of and equipped for the task. I have found this discussion very interesting particularly with regard to PXF. I have two Myford S7Bs equipped with PXF the first by design and the second by chance of being in the right place at the right time. If I'm honest, I really enjoy having the facility but don't use it all the time. The premium one is expected to pay for such a machine is very high and with my first S7B PXF, the only way I could afford it (kids about to go to uni at the time) was to pick a machine that was in excellent condition except that it had a few chunks out of the bed near the headstock. This damage to the bed makes no difference at all to the accuracy of the lathe yet dropped the price by several hundred pounds. The strange thing is that although I now have a much newer one that is in superb condition it is the older one I use all the time. What I'm getting at is that quite often with Myfords people actually look to buy an "exhibition piece" rather than a good workable lathe. If you are prepared to accept some cosmetic imperfections then I have seen several S7B PXFs sell for quite a bit less than £1000. In fact, although I planned to get rid of it when the new one fell into my grasp I won't. When the bed shows signs of wear I will get Myford to regrind it complete with missing chunks and continue to be comfortable using and abusing it daily. > As an aside, pxf is the only thing I really miss on my older S7B. I do > wish that someone would do a decent conversion kit. I have pondered this [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > David There used to be a conversion kit available at least for the ML7 I think and you see them from time to time on secondhand machines. With modern small DC motors and fancy electronic speed control I don't understand why someone hasn't at least tried the market. I guess if you had the money to invest in buying 1000 sets form the Chinese they might be cheap enough to be popular, although I still doubt they would make you a fortune. I also agree that a mechanical system should be workable but feel that a small DC motor/clutch and electronics would be easier to set up. Interesting Keith >Nyah nyah nyah - of course I want a HLV-H, and I'd make room for one at >a shot, but I can't afford more than a grand or so - which is unlikely. >How many do you have now? Ebay item: 330268377847 Student 1800, BiN at 990. Looks good. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms... ------------------------------------------------\ >> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them. a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too! Gentlemen A fascinating thread but please, I beg you, snip. thanks SignatureRoland Craven Nr. Exeter, Devon, UK roland@petternut.co.uk www.petternut.co.uk I got the answer to the question, and therefore did not look further in to the topic as it went to a lathe rebuild. If this is upset members of the group I am sorry. As I say I got the answer with a list of lathes and will look at them. > Gentlemen > A fascinating thread but please, I beg you, snip. > > thanks > I got the answer to the question, and therefore did not look further in to > the topic as it went to a lathe rebuild. If this is upset members of the > group I am sorry. As I say I got the answer with a list of lathes and will > look at them Bill, I don't think anyone was upset (well I certainly wasn’t) but perhaps a little frustrated at not being able to give well directed advice as your question didn't give a clear picture of what you need to do with the lathe; what is important to you, or of any constraints you may have. In the end, the Boxford (like many of the other suggestions and indeed the ML7) is a very fair "Jack of All Trades" machine that will do most jobs within its capacity reasonably well. If that is what you need then everyone will be happy. I think the discussion proves that the group strives to provide good, well balanced and un-biased advice; it is just easier to do that with a clear picture of your particular criteria. I’m sure we will all be happy if you find a machine that is just right for you and one that you enjoy using. I don’t think apologies are necessary Bill, after all, as in all things we each have very different opinions on the “perfect” machine and it is for you to decide which is right for you. The benefit of this group is a wide range of interests and experiences and the confidence to share them. Best regards Keith >Best regards > >Keith Just a little niggle Keith... Can you tell google groups not to keep trying to post in html? = 92 is not the same as ' to anything other than a browser. Bah Humbug. It's coming around to that time of year again :-( Mark Rand RTFM .As the original questioner possesses the inability to say 'Thank you', may I? Nice to read about others giving a helping hand Norm On 8 Sep, 07:46, ravensworth2674 <nor...@n-atkinson.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote: > .As the original questioner possesses the inability to say 'Thank > you', may I? > > Nice to read about others giving a helping hand > > Norm Norm I have got into the habit of posting via Google, I know I shouldn't but it is easy. That alone should have warned me off, what in life is worthwhile if it is easy? Anyway, I hadn't seen your Martin Cleeve response at all until I checked via a Newsreader to see what Mark was grumping about. I read the article you refer to when it first came out in ME and was inspired to see just what could be done with a fairly basic machine if one applied first class engineering principles and a lot of practical experience. My opinion hasn't changed and many times over the years when I've struggled to do something the picture of his finished machine (if it ever was finished) always comes into my mind and off I go again to complete the task. It is just that type of "making good" that inspires me about Marks rebuild. I understand your point and of course "win" is a relative term anyway. I suppose it depends on the rationale for buying the thing in the first place, as a source of entertainment, as a source of learning, as a productive machine, as a palliative to some long held urge, as an investment?? For some of these levels the exercise makes perfect sense particularly at the level of investment involved, for others, as you point out, it doesn't. On the other hand, had someone taken your course of action with the then equivalent of the £6,500 two years ago they might well be looking at a different result today as well. I still believe that the strength of this group is the diverse range of knowledge, wide experience, differing practical capability coupled with the vital confidence to share these with others, whatever their viewpoint might be. Long may it continue as in many ways I learn from it every day. Regards Keith > >Best regards > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Mark Rand > RTFM Mark, sorry but have no idea what = 92 is so can't stop using it. I thought it might be my over prolific use of inverted comma's but they show up correctly when I checked my post through the BT Newsreader. On the other hand when I took the trouble to read the posts through the newsreader I see a totally different thread to that show on Google?? Some of my own posts via Google aren't there and others Google seems to have ignored altogether ?? Obviously, I don't know enough about this usenet thing to work it properly - bit like my lathe really. Regards Keith Bill, You seem to be leaning in the general direction of Boxfords so you might also like to consider the machine from which they were copied the 9" Southbend and also another SB clone the Smart & Brown (SAB or Sabel). There's also the Smart & Brown Model M with no one has mentioned, slightly larger than the Boxford and a good deal heavier. In your position, I'd be tempted to see what crops up on fleabay etc and then check out the machine spec. and comments on Lathes.co.uk. There are plenty of other machines of that general spec. which may be nice if they crop up - Cromwell, Viceroy and Raglan are all of the period and may be better or worse than each other depending on your taste and the particular examples wear and complement of accessories. Richard > I have a very old ML7 no gear box, no cross feed, no coolant. I am thinking > of changing it but with what ? About same size but with gear box and cross > feed, also would like to take bigger cuts. Any suggestions welcome Bill, a few clues as to what is important to you might help the suggestions i.e. budget, room available, equipment you need with it any particular function it must do etc. If room is limited and you just want a little more machine then I agree with Mark's Boxford AUD suggestion, much heavier build than the ML7, gearbox and power feeds to saddle and cross slide. My long bed version takes up about 53" x 23" on the stand with the standard version being about 8" shorter. The AUD (4.5") would also be a strong suggestion if budget is a factor as they are about the best value for money available for smaller but still very capable machines. Beware though there are some rough ones about as well as some that will not have had much use at all. If budget is less of an issue then the Myford S7 with PCF is a very nice machine and I have not felt particularly limited in the rate that mine will remove metal. If size is not a problem and if you are happy with an older machine then the other suggestions from Mark and Austin all come into play. I personally would be a little careful with a Chipmaster as although it is a fine lathe the variable drive system can be extremely noisy when worn so budget for a VFD to overcome that. I also would not argue with Stephen's Maximat V10 which is a nice lathe if you can find a good one. A difficult lathe to buy second hand though as either, if you are very lucky, people don't realize how good they can be and they are dirt cheap or they DO know and they want a fortune for them. I guess I would also have to say that if poorly equipped they can be expensive and while a lot of the smaller Emco range appears a bit lightweight the V10 is where they start to get serious but still much lighter built than the Colchester etc. Excellent build quality for the original ones though. If you like "bright and shiny" and can put up with Chinese then something like the Warco BH600 is still excellent value at the moment. Regards Keith |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.