Burnerd Miniature Quick-set Toolpost Type TP

.

That's great, Steve

Thank You

MichaelG.

Michael

The tool body does not have a patent no. on it.

The tool holder has the British Patent No 655793 on it.

Hope this helps.

Ken

Jon

Middle tool in your picture is a Denford type TH "American style" threading tool. Well thats what it says on the box.

Clive

I have a Burnerd Model TP Type 1 tool post set in a wooden box, don’t think it’s ever been used certainly not by me.

Six tool holders and a slave to balance the load.

3 RH

1 LH

1 Parting

1 Boring bar

1 Slave

It came with a photo copy of an advertisement showing eight different types of tool holder (plus the slave) that were available for it .

I’ve never attempted to use it.

.

It does indeed, Ken ... Thank You

The Patent is freely downloadable as a PDF here: **LINK**

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=GB&NR=655793A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=3&date=19510801&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP

... Much appreciated

MichaelG.

.

Edit: for completeness ... here is the US Patent:

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=US&NR=2598206A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=4&date=19520527&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP

... which usefully cites the British 'application number'.

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 28/02/2017 23:17:15

.On the reasonable assumption that J. L. Austen-Walton is not a common name ... it seems likely that the inventor has decent credentials as a model-engineer. **LINK**

http://gb.trapletshop.com/0-6-0-tank-locomotive-twin-sisters-plan

[ this doesn't matter a jot to me, but it may impress some ]

MichaelG.

.

Edit: also available direct from MyHobbyStore:

http://www.myhobbystore.co.uk/product/17306/twin-sisters-lo18

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 28/02/2017 23:33:23

The stamped patent number is 655.793 Michael.

Best regards

Steve

I see in some of the above that Mr Austen-Walton may have been involved. If memory serves I believe he had a 5 inch loco designs published in ME, probably in the 50's or early 60's at a guess. The loco name was Twin Sisters.

Best regards

Steve

.

Thanks for the confirmation, Steve

... Much appreciated

I've posted links to the GB and US Patents, for the record.

MichaelG.

.

It looks like our posts are crossing in the æther

... must be my bedtime.

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 28/02/2017 23:39:03

If I recall correctly Twin Sisters was somewhat unusual.

From 1966: "Our opinion is that the design of the locomotive Twin Sisters on the whole is a very good one, with the exception of the boiler, which we regard as dangerous, unless all the plates are properly flanged ... for instance, stainless steel was specified for all motion parts and for many components where it is not essential, and could make a lot of work" (Prob. Martin Evans, in response to a reader query - he did complement other aspects of the design).

A 1949 correspondent wrote "I am afraid that I was one of the prro fools who could not resist the temptation when stainless steel was mentioned for the main frames, and have consequently had to divide my time between doing the job and obtaining the materials ... all went well until I unbolted the two plates and I thought they were going to curl around my neck ... what a fortune hacksaw-blade manufacturers must have made".

Perhaps practicality wasn't A-Ws chief concern?

Neil

Well that could also why you don't see many of these toolposts about, if they had prooved a good design and were successful then there would be more about. Seems that the likes of Multifix, Dickson etc won the day and in the small size are not really any larger.

.

An entirely non-confrontational question, if I may:

If the publishers regard[ed] the design as dangerous; does the Plans pack include any reference to that fact?

MichaelG.

.

But does that actually stop the design being interesting ?

[most of the engines you model have been superseded ... but that doesn't stop you finding the designs of interest]

MichaelG.

I think there's a standard paragraph to the effect that 'these designs were not produced to modern practice and may need to be amended to conform to modern standards' or some such wording.

Austen-Walton used a flangeless design, and as he advised the use of Silbralloy (a phosphorus containing JM alloy) of low ductility and 'not to one used in sulphurous atmospheres' let us hope there are not many boilers to the original design out there...  was he ploughing his own furrow or digging his own grave?

Neil

Neil

Edited By Neil Wyatt on 01/03/2017 09:57:04

Thanks, Neil

MichaelG.

See my edit for more info...

Thanks again, Neil

Those caveats will probably be useful to anyone contemplating purchase of the plans.

... 'though the toolpost design is of more interest to me.

MichaelG.

Well quite a journey from a simple question about a tool post to discussions about the safety of a steam locomotive design. taking in patents along the way.

That's what I like about this forum never a dull moment and a full inbox

Thanks to all who participated I enjoyed the comments

Ken

Edited By Ken Weeks on 01/03/2017 10:16:08

Indeed it is interseting and that is why I have continued to post in this thread, if it had of been of no interest I would have passed it by after the first look.

My interest was what advantages it did or did not offer other other designs. Personally I could see no reason to want to buy one now( or even when they were available), not much point in having a QCTP that additional holders would be almost impossible to obtain now, tool holding/adjustment looked fiddly and I had my doubts about rigidity of how the holders were retained.

I notice that on the Patent drawing the tool holders are narrower and do not overhang the base of the tool post and they also look to make full contact with the base, in the photos the holders are much wider which puts the tool off to one side and with no positive location of the top clamping plate there is a risk of the tool post rotating due to cutting forces.

J

Edited By JasonB on 01/03/2017 10:39:10

All builder need to do is flange the plates, not fit them into counterbores, and use proper silver solder (and check their boiler inspector is happy).

Neil