Help in identifying antique milling machine.

Heres some more photos. Starting to think that maybe this machine was actually made here in Australia. See attached a picture of a lathe with a similar base/column. Apparently machines where made her by companies, sadly there is not much information available.

I have no idea how these shafts and gears will all go together but im sure will figure it out as I go along.

Oh Hell! I wrote a few lines, returned to look again at your first set of pictures and that action deleted what I'd written.

The lathe looks a bit like an Ehrlich, or influenced by that make. (I owned one, fully-equipped, but subsequently donated it to Lynton & Barstaple Railway for its workshop. I sometimes wish I still had it!)

'

Looking at your later set of photos of parts, if they are from the milling-machine:

Of the several shafts -

- That nearest the camera seems to have a tapered end - if so it is a carrier-bar for cutters but should not have those dimples drilled in it, though may have a keyway. We can't see the other end but if I have indentified it correctly it will have a short threaded portion (for the cutter clamping-nut) and a spigot to match the drop-bracket bearing. The nut may be inside or outside the bracket, depending on design. On my Denbigh the nut is inboard of the drop-bracket.

- I thought its neighbour with the long keyway might be the longitudinal feed shaft but I would expect that instead to be a screw (square or Acme thread), not plain.

- The top two look as they work together. The screw and nut appear to be for the cross-feed, with a power-drive engaged by the dog-clutch just visible in the picture to allowing using the machine as a horizontal borer - a potentially very useful feature despite the limited travel. If so, the shaft above it may be for manual drive when setting the table across for normal horizontal milling (longitudinal feed only). If so the square might allow a loose handle removed for safety when the power cross-feed is engaged. A further clue to this is the pinion on the knee (first photos).

- I can't identify the rest but they should yield to careful examination.

'

Of the three "sculptures " -

- The large one with four conjoined holes is a guard, possibly over the power-feed gears.

- The U-shaped casting appears to carry a shaft through it, and my thought is that it carries the long-feed worm and wheel, or in this machine perhaps the spiral bevel mate for that lying on the inverted table in your first set of photos.

- The hefty block does seem to have a bearing bush in its boss, but beyond that I do not know! Still, it clearly fits a machined surface with matching holes so it should be fairly simple to identify!

'

To set the above in context, the way these typically work is :

The main table runs across the cross-feed saddle; and the latter carries a lug holding the longitudinal feed-nut (see your first photos).

The feed-screw runs the length of the main table, passing through that nut; and its ends protrude through thrust-bearings in or on the table-ends, to take a handle on one or both ends for manual control.

Riding on the end of the feed-screw, and often inside the table's cavity, is a worm-wheel (or here spiral-bevel?), with an elongated boss whose through-bore is keyed to engage the keyway running most of the screw's length. This gear is restrained so it stays in a fixed position relative to the cross-table. The feed-screw thus runs through the worm-wheel but the two parts revolve together.

The mating worm or instead driving-gear is revolved by a telescopic shaft with paired universal-joints to cope with the knee's vertical range; and driven by stepped pulleys or change-wheels from the main spindle.

The worm or gear is out of engagement by default, allowing the table to be moved manually, and is brought into play by a short handle raising it on a sprung or gravity catch. This can be released manually or by an adjustable trip-block commonly carried in its own T-slot along the front face of the main table. The adjustable trip allows repeatable, defined cuts under power-feed, such as when fluting an engine connecting-rod.

'

Now looking at the other photos -

The straight-knurled discs next to the calibrated dials suggest settable dials, a feature I wish all machine-tools had! With only the dials visible I can't say what two of the three feed-screws they are on, but each will occupy only its appointed station in life.

Thanks again Nigel. Im slowly getting my head around it.

The more I think about the two holes on the base the more I believe that this casting could have been made or modified for a lathe. In all my research I have yet to see a horizontal mill with only two holes in the base.

Could you tell me what is supposed to fit into the hole with the bronze bushing located at the rear of the column, near the bottom just off centre. The hole runs through to the front cavity just behind where the knee would be located. I will attach photo.

I believe the two holes on the left hand side of the casting at approximately 45 degrees, in line with the shaft are for oilers?

Im not sure where the previous owner had located the motor but I believe it was below the back gear shaft. Is this the best place for it? Or does someone have a better suggestion? I will be fitting a 2.5hp DC 3phase motor with a VFD. Just trying to reduce the array of belts and pulleys.

I could also try and remove some of the pulleys and replace with gears. I have a few large and small ones tucked away somewhere. Is that a better option? Would like to see some setups.

The casting is a single-piece and made for that milling-machine, but given the similarities might have been by the same manufacturer as your lathe.

The bush at the bottom, and its mate on the front, are clearly original because the one photographed is on a faced boss on the casting. My guess is that the machine was originally built for line-shaft drive via a primary pulley that used the bush, then up to the secondary shaft on the two bearers to the side of the spindle. This was fairly common practice and allowed a greater speed reduction from the line-shaft. Maybe one of those shafts in your previous photos fits there.

In restoring my Denbigh mill of sumilar appearance and vintage to service, I am faced with the same problem of speed, having calculated the necessary spindle rpm range as from about 70 to 120 rpm.

What we don't really know either is what is meant to connect the side-shaft to the spindle. Those V-belt pulleys should be fine though I doubt they are original. It might have had a 2-speed gear drive or a back-gear type speed reducing gear. Whatever it was, it used only set-screws or grub-screws as their dimples in the spindle are clearly visible. You could use gears but you've then the problem of either selecting gears to match the existing centres for correct meshing or making some sort of carrier-frame - difficult to acheive without a lot of work and risking a rather ungainly result.

The two arms dangling from the side-shaft look like a modification, probably carrying a belt-tensioning roller.

[Carefully saves this text to be able to refer to photo set 1...]

'

I am coming to think that in its original guise, comparing yours to sample machines in old catalogues and text-books:

The primary drive was an overhead line-shaft or separately-mounted motor with stepped pulleys, to a shaft in the base of the column. A second belt then either -

- ran to one on the rear end of the spindle, and the side-shaft carried a back gear, or

- to the side-shaft then gears or a further pulley pair to the spindle.

Of those I favour the former but you might find problems sourcing gears to match the rigidly- set centres if you replace the V-pulleys. If you keep that belt final drive you will need replace the tension roller if it is missing. I would also recommend you place the motor high above swarf and dust (as I have with my Harrison lathe), and to allow a large single-step belt reduction with sufficient wrap on the smaller pulley. Use just one, twin-belt for that primary drive, and fit the driven pulley either within the frame or if external, as close as possible to the bearing to minimise the overhanging load on the shaft.

You will need a large mechanical speed-reduction, because motors do not like running slowly. I am not sure if as some say, this is because their fans beome inefficient or for some electrical reason.

The Newton-Tesla VFD sets on Myford 7 and Harrison L5 lathes keep the motor happy at 900-1000rpm even with the machine itself, on its lowest mechanical speeds, running at <100rpm. (I estimate by eye, 60-70rpm on the Harrison). The speed controls' Green advisory sectors are high up on the scale.

One option for a partly-geared drive (as I may use on my comparable example) is to put the gears at the motor end, or in between a primary and secondary belt. That allows making a gearbox to suit the application, using readily-available gears and minimal changes to the machine itself.

Belt drives tend to be quieter than fast-running spur gears, too, but more to the point give some warning and protection by slipping if something jams or you accidentally over-load the cutter.

2.5HP.... Large for a machine like that, especially with the torque-multiplying given by the heavy speed reduction; risking inadvertently overloading a relatively light machine with small shafts running in plain bearings. My Denbigh will have a 1HP single-phase motor I obtained long ago, and though my other machines have 3-ph conversions I don't envisage that necessary for a small horizontal mill. I may need limit the cutters' maximum diameters, widths and feed rates but that's not a problem.

You could fit the motor below the shaft as you suggest but that is a bit close to swarf and cutting-fluid. It is better somewhere above the machine.

'

The small holes at 45º - for oil? Yes. When you remove the spindle, ensure they are clear and clean through. I do not know if they originally held proper oilers but that would be a good idea, if only a simple lid to keep dirt out.

A puzzle feature on my machine is a small lug with vertical blind hole, on the side opposite the corresponding front oil-hole. It may have been to hold a lamp, possibly offered as an extra - no reason I could not use it thus.

.

Mine has its original 3-step flat-belt pulley on the spindle, with a large grub-screw accessible through a hole in the pulley face - a previous owner had bolted a modified motorcyle sprocket to that pulley, for a chain-drive from a motor and ancient car gearbox on an overhead frame. It does not have a side-shaft, nor provision for an intermediate shaft low down, because the Denbigh H-series mills were for fitting to a separately-supplied stand or customer-built bench.

I'm contemplating a belt drive to reduction-gears, then belt final-drive. Alternatively, my two gear-pairs available, on the spindle and on a side-shaft on swing-arms with bearings on the spindle, controlled by a side-frame mounted on the original machine-to-stand fastenings. A a geared final drive / Lenix-pattern belt-tensioning, from a motor above the machine. The feed needs replacing completely, and is driven from the spindle's rearward extension.

I'm certain the casting was purpose made for a horizontal mill, not a lathe.

On the left is a cast in bed to take the knee, and the base casting comes out to support the spigot holding the screw. The mouldings supporting the top bar are specific to milling as well.

The design is a simple generic type that seems to have been most popular in the 1920s, but I found pictures of similar layout before WW1 and into the 1940s. After WW2 machine tools take on a more rounded look, and have more guards. From the 1950's tools evolved towards the boxy look and bright paint we know today. Fairly sure it was made between the two world wars. Preferred colour before WW1 was black, grey, and light grey came in later.

The design is straightforward and could have been made almost anywhere. I suspect, it's 'inspired by' rather than a specific known make, though big name makers often produced cheaper unbranded kit for badge resale. The complete absence of markings suggests rebadging. Could be British (including Australia), German, Spanish, Czech, Italian, North American, Japanese or a number of other countries.

Early machine tools were driven by a long belt hung from an overhead line-shaft. Later versions from their own electric motor. Machines made in the switchover period (well into the 1940s) often left it to the purchaser to arrange the motor and back-shaft pulleys themselves: I think that's what you have. It would have had 'an array of belts and pulleys' as a cheap straightforward solution.

If there's space for them to be run safely belts are fine, no need to change to gears. Switching to gears is possible, but would require thinking through the necessary gear ratios. The machine and motor have to be matched. Personally, I like to make use of what's already available rather than make new work such as finding and fitting a suitable gear that fits the pulley shaft, and then engineering the rest of the gear train to the motor. Belts solve a lot of problems!

Whether the machine is worth restoring depends on it's condition and your stamina! Assess it carefully. As a small production machine, it might be very badly worn. Inspect the bed-ways for grooves, serious dings, and wear hollows. They might require a regrind. Make sure the bearings aren't seized, have high run-out, or are lumpy. Replacing bearings ranges from easy (common standard size) to expensive nightmare (unusual high-end bearings requiring careful adjustment) If the machine came from a school or non-production workshop, it might be near perfect. However, are any major parts missing? It might have been cannibalised. If major parts are missing, finding spares to fit an unknown ancient machine is hard work.

A complete wreck can be restored if you have the time, money and facilities, but is it worth the effort? Only you can decide. Whilst I'd rather make things than mend old bangers, plenty of others enjoy long restorations! The forum is good at answering questions, and there are a number of threads showing how unpromising kit was brought back to life.

Dave

Edited By SillyOldDuffer on 21/11/2021 10:38:36

Thanks for all the information guys. I have plenty of time on my hands so thats not much of a factor. To be honest the machine hasnt cost much at all and like I said it came with a Victor vertical head. It will be a fun project and theres always times when you need to mill something horizontally. Not sure what but Im sure there is.

If I run belts between the back gear shaft and the main shaft, how would I be able to tension the belts? In theory I could fit a motor just under the back gear shaft run a belt straight up and then another belt will run across to the main shaft. With a VFD rpm will be controlled somewhat so no need for lots of belts and pulleys. Do I still need to run a belt from the rear of the main shaft to the lower shaft? The one in the photos with the bronze bushing and no shaft running through it.

A diagram of what you suggest would be great.

On another forum, there are several discussions about ‘updating’ lineshaft macines … including this compact [?] belt installation : **LINK** : https://www.practicalmachinist.com/vb/antique-machinery-and-history/powering-old-lineshaft-b-s-milling-machine-293484/

Very tidy … but still bulky by modern standards

To me; this clearly demonstrates the advantage of incorporating a gearbox. [a scrapped vehicle being the obvious donor]

MichaelG.

.

Edit: The photo is thumb-nailed in post #9

This should get you directly to it : 

https://www.practicalmachinist.com/vb/attachments/f19/120993d1415056524-powering-old-lineshaft-b-s-milling-machine-008.jpg

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 24/11/2021 08:19:18

The picture in Michaels link is very Denbigh-ish. Simple, effective, bulky but you can get at everything. Flat belt spindle drive is a serious constraint with that machine due to the need for significant distance between centres if the system is to drive properly without excessive tension which willrapidly kill the spindle bearings. Objectively that belt is too short really.

A compact way of getting high reduction with a belt drive system is to use a "back-belt" system mimicking the layout of a lathe back gear. Basic idea is to extend the motor spindle with an accurately running sleeve with the drive gear fixed to the sleeve and a pair of pulleys bolted together free-running on the sleeve via suitable bearings. A second pair of pulleys are fixed to a countershaft a suitable distance away.

Motor pulley drives one of the countershaft pulleys.

Second countershaft pulley drives one of the free running pair on the sleeve whith the machine drive taken off the other one of the pair.

Obviously the pulley pairs going from motor to countershaft and back are two large and two small ones of identical sizes so the belt lengths are the same. Two step downs in series gives a decent reduction ratio without huge size differences. Two 2 to 1 pairs give 4 to 1 reduction taking a 1400 rpm motor output down to 350 rpm which is pretty useful. 3 to 1 pairs gives 9 to 1 and 155 rpm which is probably as slow as you'd ever need to go. 4 to 1 reduction is do-able in a single step with Vee belts but needs plenty of space. 9 to 1 is just too cunbersome and the big pulley will be expensive. Even Poly Vee isnt a great help getting 9 to 1 down to sensible sizes.

Poly Vee belts let you use quite small diameter pulleys at close centres. For my example 4 to 1 reduction system 2" and 4" diameters would do very nicely at 6" to 8" centres. Easily cut from solid and easy to put a needle roller bearing in.

Last one I made had the motor and countershaft as a single bulit up unit iwth thw countershaft bracketed above the motor. If I ever do another I shall sit the countershaft on pillars and shim the spacers to set belt tension.

Or consider raiding the car scrap yards for two pairs of toothed belt camshaft drive pulleys. High quality, 2 to 1 pairs for negligable money 'cos nobody wants them.

Clive

Thanks for your help gentlemen.

I will keep you informed of my progress. Will probably start on it next year.