New tool post for my lathe

Hi all

does any one know if it is possible to buy a better tool post for the machine mart CL430 metal working lathe or do you have to stick with the tool post that come with the lathe at purchase

I would really like to change to a better and maybe a quick release post if possible but confused as what to buy , I get my stuff from Waco.co.uk usually but don’t know which way to go if any

thanks

Brian

Hi Brian. You should get a Dixon style quick change tool post from RDG tools not far from you, west Yorkshire but don't just look there have a look at other suppliers for similar tooling. You can give them a call (0) 1422 884605 / 885069 and have a look if you like. It may need a new stud and or nut making but you will be able to sort that out with your old tool post.

David

The problem with the Dickson toolpots is that the toolholders are very expensive. The wedge type of toolpost has toolholders that are nearly half the price. Arceuro stock them.

The main piece of advice the OP needs is the size to get. It can be a bit confusing as the suppliers use a few different number/letter sequences. You don't want too big a one as the tools end up too high.
You might need to do a little bit of work making or modifying the central bolt.

Interestingly, some time ago, while I was pondering whether to change from a 4 way, to a QCTP, I read an article in MEW, (I think ) extolling the virtues of QCTPs.

But it went onto say that a QCTP was no quicker to change tools than a 4 way!

Already having a 4 way at the front, and another at the rear, I stuck with it, and saved about £150 on toolpost and holders. Not needing to be on piecework rates, I have stuck with them

Howard

May I suggest the place to start to select a new toolpost/holder of any kind is to measure the distance from the top surface of the compound slide to lathe centre line, this dimension can be used to select a toolpost that allows tools to be adjusted to centre height.

Emgee

Howard, how can you say that a 4 way toolpost is not slower that a qctp? Farting around with bits of packing, trying to find one the right thickness? A qctp is so much better just as long as you have lots of toolholders. That is the problem, having enough toolholders. I have Dickson but only 4 holders, I would like another 4. I would never go back to a 4 way toolpost. I have to frequently change the tool in one of my holders but it is still much quicker than searching for the right piece of packing!

Edited By norman valentine on 03/10/2019 15:32:09

I suppose if you had 4 tools set in a 4 way tool post, you only need to set them once. Then it's a matter of rotating the post to choose your desired tool, which would be quicker than a qctp. Drawback is being limited to 4 tools. But being cheap, you could easily have more tool posts loaded with tooling....I think.

Norman,

I did not say that a 4 way toolpost was not slower than a QCTP.

I did not express an opinion, either way, other than reporting my actions based on the article.

If you read my post more carefully, you will see that I REPORTED what the writer of the article, a QCTP advocate, wrote,

Not my findings or conclusion; HIS!

If you find the article you will that my post was a correct report.

Howard

Norman,

With regard to packing, my two 4 way posts (front and Rear ) carry the tools that I use most often. Each tool is carried in a thick packer, augmented by shims, to fine tune the tool to centre height, by setting to my centre height gauge, allowing me a choice of 6 tools be used. Occasionally, one will be removed for a less frequently used tool, such as knurling.

It is rare to be able to mount 4 tools on a 4 way. Mine carry, in the Front, Boring bar, Rougher, and Finisher.

Rear: Front chamfer, Parting, and Back chamfer.

In the main, we are hobbyists, producing small volumes, so presumably are spared the time pressures which drive a piece worker who is working for their living, to mass produce, where time is money.

I chose to stick with 4 ways, one of the reasons being lack of space to store the multitude of tool holders, most of which would spend the majority of their time on the shelf.

Not everyone enjoys the facilities that I do. By the same token, there are others whose workshops are better equipped than mine.

Each to whatever works best for them. One man's meat and all that.

Howard

odd! words that I did not split were!

Edited By Howard Lewis on 03/10/2019 15:59:25

Edited By Howard Lewis on 03/10/2019 16:00:07

Edited By Howard Lewis on 03/10/2019 16:03:20

I would recommend a look at the ArcEurotrade wedge type tool posts as well. I changed over from a Dixon type on my Myford ML7 to one of these. They also stock a range of sizes of this type of tool post.

Model 100 QCTP

The primary issue with a QCTP is the cost of the post and enough tool holders. To properly exploit it you need enough holders to take all your commonly used tools plus a couple or three spares for job specific tools. I reckon 10 or 12 for most folk. Thats not gonna be cheap.

Secondary issue with our smaller lathes is rigidity. By its very nature a QCTP must be less rigid than a solid block. To make matters worse the tool is inevitably somewhat overhung from the slide and further away from the hold down stud. The smaller the machine the worse things get as there is less metal around to carry the loads and there is less room for the clamping components. In my view a Dickson T2 on an appropriate size machine is the smallest QCTP that can automatically be considered satisfactory. Below that size you need to consider the inherent engineering trade-offs to decide what will be generally satisfactory for your machinery and the work you do.

The faffing around with shims argument is a pure chimera. Especially now dial indictors and digital / vernier calipers are relatively inexpensive. Its relatively easy to arrange ways of measuring actual tool tip height so the correct shims can be selected from stock. Whether on the lathe or off it. Gets even easier if you standardise on flat top, hollow ground on the periphery of the wheel, tooling as I suggested in a previous thread. If you go the all insert route the cutting edge is always at the same height so the whole issue becomes irrelevant.

In my opinion the best price performance ratio comes from interchangeable two slot blocks built up from stock materials carrying flat topped hollow ground tooling sharpened on the front face only. Even better if a quick release system is used on the tool holding stud. Spend the money saved on an insert type, blade style, parting off tool in its proper holder with a good stock of inserts and make anice solid holder for it. Permanent rear toolpost being the best home for it because it will always be available and its worth spending the time to get it aligned dead nut right.

The main disadvantages of the flat top tooling approach is cutting depth and issues with some materials. Realistically cuts over 50 thou / 1 mm deep may prove too much, especially when the tool looses its keen edge. But the whole point of that system is that its very easy to restore a sharp edge without affecting geometry. But its no great trouble to have occasionally used tools with more complex, harder to sharpen geometry on hand when needed. That said I rarely uses much deeper cuts despite both my lathes being well up for more. If I do need to shift major amounts of material it will be hacked off at 1/4" or 3/8" cuts.

Clive

I think it was the 'Lammas' three-way toolpost which the author tended to declare was superior in every way.

True you really CAN have three tools in it so changing is just a matter of rotating it, but reading every 'advantage' listed in the original articles you tend to start wondering if it can also bring world peace.

Neil

As a special treat for subscribers, I have created an article around David Lammas' article from 1995, as previously republished in the 25 Years Special, which is now long out of print.

www.model-engineer.co.uk/news/article/three-way-toolpost-by-david-lammas

Note this is subscriber-only content, so you will need to have a valid subscriber number for ME or MEW to view it.

Neil

The Dickson tool post is quality item. For it to locate accurately the distance between the Vs has to be spot on. Most of the Dickson style toolposts seem to be clones of the originals. I question if the makers of these clones adhere to the C-C dimension of the original Dickson.

The wedge type of Aloris clone is pretty forgiving about tool holder geometry. The only critical surfaces for accurate locating are the face of the tool holder and the face of the front dovetail.

I have a QCTP but only one tool holder so untill i have the time to make some more (10-15) its stays on the shelf. My current set up is 3 fore way tool posts all set up with the most common tools that a use, 2 tools in each holder. Its surprisingly quick just a whip off the fore way and change it with another.

For what it's worth - not much - I'm with Howard in even simpler form. With a 4-way tool-post I don't even bother with carriers.

My experience was:

• On first encounter with new tools there is indeed a period of farting about whilst a suitable selection of spacers and shims is selected. Loads of time wasted.
• This was followed by a period of mild confusion: I knew roughly what packing was required and had it to hand, but couldn't quite remember which combination was needed for each tool. Fair bit of time wasted.
• But! After using the tools in anger for a while, I now know which shims are needed for each, and they are kept next to the tool. Now changing tools in a 4-way is remarkably fast, certainly fast enough to throw doubt on the value of a QTCP and its collection of costly holders.

One caveat, I tend to use Carbide Inserts and HSS tools bought in sets and all my home-ground HSS is made from the same sized stock. This high-level of standardisation helps considerably: once one tool in a set is shimmed to the correct height, all the others follow suit. There's not much to remember. Standardisation might not be so easily available in a workshop based on a mix of HSS tool-blank sizes.

Struck me that QTCP may be more useful for users of HSS than we carbide insert fanboys. HSS needs to be removed for resharpening which for several reasons could disturb the tool height slightly. Being able to remove the whole holder, sharpen the point, and then fine tune height with the QTCP holder back on the lathe is valuable to HSS users in a way made redundant by carbide inserts. With carbide 'resharpening' means simply swapping the insert, which doesn't effect any settings at all.

I wouldn't bet money on winning a race between my 4-position tool holder and a QTCP, but I'm confident in my case, QTCP isn't worth the money.

Howard said 'Each to whatever works best for them. One man's meat and all that.' +1 to that!

Dave

PS. Two things stand out as major time wasters on my WM280:

• Lack of a full gearbox - the amount of time I waste playing the banjo far exceeds tool-changing and it's messy.
• Less obviously, for many jobs a clutch would speed work up considerably.

Edited By SillyOldDuffer on 04/10/2019 09:34:54

Armstrong type tool holder in a lantern tool post.....

And just for back up, 19 QCTP Dickson (note spelling) holders...

And for extra extra back up, note the original indexing 4 way behind the light, although i despise using the thing and dislike it intensely.

Edited By thaiguzzi on 04/10/2019 09:34:51

I'd be wary of getting a wedge-type QCTP that is too big for your equipment. My lathe has slightly larger capacity than the OP's, but I deliberately went for a size 000 wedgie from Arc. Having previously had a four-way (supplied with the lathe) and then a Dickson type, I am glad I eventually settled on the wedge-type. I use a mixture of HSS and insert tipped tooling and have built up a selection of holders for my most-used tooling, though I have to admit, I've spread the cost over a fair period. To be honest, I don't think my lathe has sufficient power at speed to get the best from carbide inserts, but I persevere and generally manage to get acceptable results.

The Arc page for the size 000 states that it is suitable for a mini-lathe and a Myford, so will presumably fit Brian's lathe easily, albeit with a possible modification to the mounting stud. At the same time as I fitted the new toolpost, I incorporated the Arc-supplied needle roller thrust bearing modification, which I consider worthwhile.

Link to Arc

As has been said above, whatever suits you is best. Only you can decide how deep your pockets are, compared to the length of your arms.

John

.

Thanks, Neil

It has always struck me as being a well-optimised solution.

Three pre-set tools is plenty for many jobs, and it’s ergonomically superior to a four-way.

MichaelG.