which lathe is this?

5YI inherited my lathe from Gramps in 1982. He said it was a Southbend with some Myford change wheels fitted an extended cross slide a clutch. I have searched the internet but can't find any conclusive info, can anyone offer any suggestions please?

Try trawling through the different links on this page: http://www.lathes.co.uk/southbend/index.html

Various parts (gear cover, tailstock) look very like the 1920s-30s models, but I can't see any models with similarly attached headstocks.

Perhaps you could send your picture to Tony who runs that site?

Neil

Yep I have had a look at that site & very good it is to, there is a myford that is a cantilever bed type but not any other siimilarities,perhaps Gramps made it from various bits!-----Mick Oh here's a photo I missed

Its got certain similarities to a Drummond M type, or M type as later made by Myfords, but somehow not quite.

Richard

No, it's definitely not an M Type. I have one of them and apart from the "anvil" type base, there are too many differences. And even the "anvil" base in the above pics has Myford-style "feet' sticking out where it bolts to the bench. M-types and other earlier Drummonds had complete through-holes in the base for the bolts.

The pictured lathe does look very similar to a pre-war Myford, something like an ML3. But looks like gramps may have made a few mods. Looks more like an ML7-style cross-slide, top slide and apron.

The carriage itself though does not look ML7, due to the odd bits of cast iron sticking out in front of the cross slide that cover the ways, partially. Kind of looks like that part came off a lathe with the ways set further apart. That looks more like Southbend practice -- but they were all (mostly?) V-beds, not flat beds, and those carriage extrensions over the ways were longer and thinner looking.

Headstock is a bit of a mystery. Very early Myfordish too.. I would hazard a guess that whatever it is, it was originally pre-war flat belt drive that has been converted to v-belts with that extra spacer on the spindle taking up the extra width the flat pulleys would have taken.

If Tony at the lathes.co.uk site does not know what it is, probably nobody will, but it might be worth a post on the Yahoo groups Myford Lathes group.

Let us know if you find out anything. As a regular user of of my pre-war M-type lathe, I am intgrigued to know what you have there.

If the top slide is original the off centre feed screw position is most likely definitive. No inexpensive lathe of that design era, most likely 1930's, that I'm aware of is so equipped although it seems that it might lead to production cost savings if the feed nut is tapped direct in the slide. Apron is seriously sketchy so I can't see it as being an expensive machine when new.

The Myford style extension for to increase cross slide travel would appear to be an owners modification. Nicely done too.

Clive

Thanks for some interesting comments gents, I had thought it had drummond / myford features. I did notice that the thread on cross slide is 8tpl but the index collar was graduated 100 thou instead of 125,all threads seem to be myford ie splndle/lead screw etc.I'll take some more detailed pics and send to Tony,whatever Gramps has been up to it is a cracking lathe which has given us both good service.thanks for comments if I find out anything I''ll let you know

If you look closely, you can see that the change gear cover and the associated housing on the LH of the leadscrew are from an ML7. That largely explains why it looks cock-eyed, You should look under the cover and see what is in there. I wonder if he fitted the tumbler gear and banjo from a Myford perhaps?

The anvil base looks like a bit of an unusual feature that may help with identification. I was initially thinking Portass / Tyzak but all of those machines had 2 feet at this size. It looks similar in some respects to the early Myfords like the ML2 / ML4 (compare the anvil base, bed section and the tailstock design) but the head fixings and the saddle / apron are quite different. It almost looks like a slight reinterpretation of one of those.

Another unusual feature on this machine is the position of the handwheel on the very LH edge of the top slide, rather than in the middle like most machines. That must narrow it down quite a bit if it's original.

Certainly looks quite businesslike.

The offset feedscrew on the topslide is typical Drummond M, see the photo essay on Tony's site.

I don't think you've told us what the centre height and distance between centres are, this might help narrow the field of search a bit. I must say, if your gramps built this up from parts, he did a wonderful job. Most bitsas look like a loosely assembled heap of parts, this one looks a 'proper job'

The bed looks like an old Myford ml3 or ml4 to me

An M series Drummond measures about 105mm across the ways, the ML series units are narrower

Here you go--centre height over ways = 4&3/16"; over gap= 5&7/8"; between centres =18";3&3/4" across ways ( 95 mm?) & a 5/8 bore through headstock mandrel, definitely myford gear train fitted, I have took some more pics and I'll put in the album later, thanks for all your comments, there will also be a picture of my Gramps which is the back of the lathe where can keep an eye on me. RIP XX

Mick

Have a look at the Mk III Winfield. The headstock and bed mounting screws look very similar. Possibly an OEM for someone else, which would explain the lack of cast-in name.

Rod

Rod I think you have cracked it, the final version of the Mk 3 long bed model looks good,the headstock is spot on,the carriage etc also look the same,topslide slightly different,cross slide has 3 t slots also good,the tailstock more like the earlier mk 3,so looks like Gramp fitted extension to crosslide,the myford changewheel system plus thread indicator for screwcutting,I have read Tony's website And will send him a photo to see what he makes of it, many thanks to you for your help-----Mick

Rod----sorry what does OEM mean?

Well done Rod,

It was the hold-down nut for at the back of the tailstock that looked wrong for the early Myfords.

He may have fitted a South Bend tailstock too?

Neil

Sorry, jargon. Original Equipment Manufacturer - made to be sold with somebody else's badge on it. Tool factors like Buck & Ryan and Gamages tended to do this.

Cheers,

Rod

Blimey, Rod - mentioning Gamages is going back a bit !

Dennis

Found it! Corbett's XLS cantilever bed version.

http://www.lathes.co.uk/corbett/

Fourth picture down looks right.   Unusually for Tony ther appears to be no text. Text above apparently concerns the long bed XL Special version with foot at the tailstock end of the bed. Only relevant text is a comment about being an odd mixture of early Winfield and Pools special in the subsequent set of four pictures. Machine in the photos isn't quite the same as that in the drawing.  Headstock boltdown configuration looks different but its clearly basically same. However I think Tony may have got his picture order and text a bit muddled up as 4 1/2 x 20 sounds right for the cantilever version. Some of the same pictures appear in the Granville section.

I have a feeling that working from pictures Tony has intorduced some confusion between the 3 1/2" by 20" Grayson / Granville / London et al lathe which has a tailstock foot and a long bed version of the 4 1/2 " Corbett (et al) which also has a tailstock end food and is pretty much identical in appearance and proportions. Just bigger. In machines of this era and market position there were varying degrees of optimism concerning the quoted between centres capacity!

Clive

Edited By Clive Foster on 23/09/2014 13:43:08

Clive-- the Winfield & Corbett look very similar but on balance the Corbett seems favourite,the topslide on C is the same as mine as is the tailstock, headstock carriage and apron look good and crosslide has th 3 t slots as does mine, I'll have a good read through the text but I'm leaning towards the Corbett. The absence of badging etc is a nuisence something could be hidden under paint but I'm reluctant to clean & repaint as the patina will be lost,all the important parts appear in good nick,bit of a light clean might be in order but she's a working lathe not an exhibition piece---my thanks to Rod & Clive and all who have helped, I'll post any updates

Regards Mick