Member postings for Roger Best

I have that book and I remember the comments.

Part of the warning was about gaps being too small on precision parts that were tight together. The other part was about using the solder as a filler for bad work. He is a demanding man.

Its not so much about the ideal gap as the ideal solder for the quality of geometry. Will you need something runny to penetrate, or pasty to fill? The book tabulates loads of options but the message I took away was to ask a reputable supplier when I need some and to expect to have to buy a variety for any given model.

Poly-V belts are easy to stitch, you just lay the wire in the groove and it keeps quiet as it doesn't touch the pulley. Not sure what wire is recommended though.

This is considered an "upgrade" in some quarters as it is quieter than a traditional stitched leather belt.

I think they made plenty of scrap, and enjoyed it. Maybe a few locos that listed and wore out their rod bearings.

The Model Engineers Handbook has arrived, very interesting it is too, with all sorts of stuff.

Page 13dot16 refers, specifying the radius position and tabulating the various dimensions. Unfortunately they differ to the diagram above in some dimensions but the principle of positioning the radius tool centre on the diameter point, and a specified distance from the back face is there.

The specified flange radius is only 0.030", so 1/32, and the angle 20degrees, so much less rounded than Noah's drawings. More to scale I expect.

Thanks for the tips.

Highly informative thread chaps, ta

I will be getting a copy of that book, but I won't ask for that CDA file just yet thank you Duncan as I will be working in 3.5" for some time.

Noah - are you satisfied?

Hi guys

I am also dissatisfied with the dimensions given.

The wheel has two models of operation, straight and near-straight running on the coned tread, as illustrated in all books about locomotives, and scrubbing round "tight" radii, as in junctions and almost all model applications where the track is not dead straight, which Paul ably points out is actually more critical to safety.

In the drawing those two systems are not tied by a tolerance, so the 1/16"R is floating in space, with a multitude of tolerance build-up deciding where it is. Obviously the designer intended all dimensions to be absolute with a form tolerance on top, but it doesn't help the machinist at all.

As a total amateur machinist I would want to use a 1/16 radius tool, touch off the back plate and move across exactly the distance to put it in the right place, feed in to diameter, allowing for the tangent, then feed across on the compound slide at 3 degrees. Then all running surfaces are in the right place and accurate. Obviously roughing is required and I am sure the pros have more sophisticated methods.

I have always found wheel geometry baffling and I think I now know why.

Good joke, I laughed as this has been my experience too.

The wife asked why I laughed, I said "CAD joke".

That required extensive explanation.

Super stuff, thanks especially to Jason.

Thanks Nick

I have noted the multiple clones, there was even a German-branded version on UK Ebay the other week. Service and support is paramount to me when we are considering modest quality items.

Thanks Jason, that is exactly what l was looking for, its a shame the vendors don't think about such practicalities.

Hi folks

I have finally been able to get some woodwork done and the depth of the bench is now 500mm.

I have had a good look at the SX2.7L, there is a fair chance it will fit. A 3.5 is just too big.

The Warco WM16B is looking very attractive, its drip tray would fit on the bench,as its only 482 deep, 520 wide according to the website. I have been in contact and they are opening the demo room with gloves and masks mandatory, so I will pop over when I can.

Its obvious that the Sieg has a deeper vertical casting which is bound to make it stiffer. At the moment the decision may be based on Warco being over an hour closer to my home.

I have had a look on ebay, but "affordable" machines seem to be trashed, the rest seem a lot of money compared to a new Chinese machine with a warranty.

Thanks for all the help, I will report what happens when I get round there, hopefully in a couple of weeks. .

HI Keith, how did your purchase go?

I am looking at a Warco and would be buying and fitting DRO, so your experience is very pertinent to me.

ta

Rog

Sooo many variables! Clive's essay is very thoughtful, thanks.

Thanks Stuart,

The SX2.7L has a useful table, it makes the Axminster version look very small.

Thanks Steve

Its nice to know that the smaller machines are adequate for challenging work.

Hi guys

Ta Bill, I have not made up my mind, have you been happy with the X2? If you did need to up-size, what features would you want based on your experience so far?

Thanks Paul, I note that only the smallest machines tilt the column, it sounds like a double argument for a slightly larger machine.

So back to the problem in hand -

I have been graciously told that the WM 14 machines are fine on a 500 bench. The metal drawers are actually 18" 460mm deep, but I think I can steal a little room.

The VM16 is a bit bigger and needs at least 500, plus sticks out a good bit, so perhaps it is the practical limit of this bench design.

The Axminster SX2.7 is illustrated mounted flush on a 515mm table top, so I suspect that it, and its SIEG brothers need a bit more space than I have. They are 30mm deeper than the VM16 and probably would need plan B - to take the space used by the Drummond - unless I do something special.

SX3 variants seem to have the same base as the SX2.7, and the VM 18 is getting big too.

The Drummond is no micro- lathe, it is about 42" 1070mm long, so takes up a lot of bench. However it is not going to be working soon, so perhaps its best place is on the back of the bench stripped down for restoration.

That would leave me with a space of 1.4m, 55" between the South Bend and the door for a second bench on which I could put a milling machine. So I haven't made a decision at all.

Actually I have - I will build this bench around 490-500 deep, checking the crush gap between the bench and door. Whichever milling machine I get will go where it fits.

So on the basis that I don't want to have to upgrade in the future, I want good quality, I want to buy new, rather than fix up an old machine, I will be keeping to the smaller end of the model engineering, 3 1/2" gauge rail and probably 2" or smaller 3" scale traction engines, what machine should I get??

Thanks for all of your advice.

The little lathe is a Drummond M-type, presumably coming up for its 100th birthday. Its a cracking hobby lathe, nominally 3 1/2" it has a good gap bed, a whopping 9" face plate and loads of bits I have yet to sort out.

Obviously I don't need two lathes, but this one has waited 20 years for some TLC and I do like it.

It was sold to me by a gent who became a mentor and close friend to my brother, he lived just off, Maidstone Road, Rainham Kent, so someone might know him. He died many years ago, a great loss to my brother.

The other end is dominated by my WW2 South Bend Heavy 10 with taper turning attachment. It sticks out 27", 690mm, so well in the way for getting past.

I just spend ages measuring and thinking and checking dimensions and thinking. Its amazing how poor I am at making a decision considering I have been on this since 2004.

I then spend ages typing this post, hit the wrong button and it all disappeared.

I have managed to up-load some pictures. The mahogany came out of a skip about 20 years ago when a previous employer ripped out some office partitions that probably dated from the 1950s. When we moved from Gateshead to Hampshire it came too. The time and trouble of bridging across the metal drawers is fine by me as the draws are lovely and the vendors didn't know what load they could take. I have a 18" x 24" surface plate to fit on as well as a heavy vice and prospective machine tool.

The gap in the foreground will have a fume cupboard, so what you see is the bench, about 2m long.

Thanks Stuart - it looks like a '16 would be appropriate and a bigger machine would need plan B.

Edited By Roger Best on 04/07/2020 12:58:58

Its a massive door, its over-height too. The door was over £2k and there is another grand of stainless in the wall to avoid having a return in the wall, but it will last me out and I can get anything in or out, so that's fine.

When I sell the place I will advertise this as a motorbike garage, I am not sure if "small traction engine garage" has a significant Market.

Hi chaps, thanks for all your replies.

You have me persuaded on tilting, I won't worry either way.

Interesting to see that the small Warco base is so much smaller than its listed footprint Journeyman- the handle obviously sticks out a long way. That's why I asked, they all have a smaller base than the outside dimension across the handle.

The folding handle tip is very pertinent Clive, ta.

My workshop is a corridor Not done it yet, or more precisely a side alley, with bedroom four extended above. I could put a machine at the end but would have to get my bicycle past it, an even worse problem than having it on the bench. There is a door at either end and the bike end is a good size and swings out, but the other swings into the work space and has to miss the bench. So all in all plan A is the best one. The bench will be over 2m long, so plenty of traverse space, I just have to get a machine that does the job, fits and will last to repay the investment.

https://youtu.be/abpvS7oc6RM