Re: Satisfaction.....

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 16:17:06 +0100, Peter Neill
<panuno95-ukrec@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>It's like waiting for a Bus, none for ages, then...
>
>Just noticed one for sale on the inside back page of this months MEW,
>from Home and Workshop machinery. It's a model A and is on offer for
>the princely sum of £495.
>Which is only twice as much as a coolant system for a Myford shown
>further down the page.
>
>Says it all really<G>.
>
>Peter
>(with not enough room in the garage)

You could fit it in if you got rid of the washing machine.

Given what's not there on that lathe it'll be the best part of £1000
by the time you've got chucks, face plate and toolpost so it's no
bargain.
The lathe does have a "rebuilt by...." label on it so it *might* be
worth the effort but it would still be an expensive CVA.
And no, I don't need another. One CVA is enough for most people. Tim
Leech now has 3 and there's a danger that they'll start breeding.

Charles

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 22:48:05 +0100, Charles Ping
<charles.ping@littlewrongs.org.uk> wrote:

>On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 16:17:06 +0100, Peter Neill
><panuno95-ukrec@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>It's like waiting for a Bus, none for ages, then...
>>
>>Just noticed one for sale on the inside back page of this months MEW,
>>from Home and Workshop machinery. It's a model A and is on offer for
>>the princely sum of £495.
>>Which is only twice as much as a coolant system for a Myford shown
>>further down the page.
>>
>>Says it all really<G>.
>>
>>Peter
>>(with not enough room in the garage)
>
>You could fit it in if you got rid of the washing machine.
>
>Given what's not there on that lathe it'll be the best part of £1000
>by the time you've got chucks, face plate and toolpost so it's no
>bargain.
>The lathe does have a "rebuilt by...." label on it so it *might* be
>worth the effort but it would still be an expensive CVA.
>And no, I don't need another. One CVA is enough for most people. Tim
>Leech now has 3 and there's a danger that they'll start breeding.
>
>
>Charles

It's got a chuck with a backplate that can be copied. Toolposts are just lumps
of iron and JS's drawings (of get another Multifix out of the cupboard :-).
I'd be more worried about the claims that:-

"needs a couple of change wheels for the gearbox drive and a toolpost selling
as is"

That statement makes is sound as if it's only fit for the knackers.

OTOH, if I wasn't up to my arse in rebuilding Hardinge and Beaver, I'd
probably be looking for a CVA and would have been tempted to knock them down
on this one.

What do you reckon.. (Hardinge HLV and CVA Mk 1A Series 3) or (Myford ML7 and
Hardinge HLV)? Do you think I should offer them a swap for an ML7 :-)

Mark Rand
RTFM

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 22:48:05 +0100, Charles Ping
<charles.ping@littlewrongs.org.uk> wrote:

>On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 16:17:06 +0100, Peter Neill
><panuno95-ukrec@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>It's like waiting for a Bus, none for ages, then...
>>
>>Just noticed one for sale on the inside back page of this months MEW,
>>from Home and Workshop machinery. It's a model A and is on offer for
>>the princely sum of £495.
>>Which is only twice as much as a coolant system for a Myford shown
>>further down the page.
>>
>>Says it all really<G>.
>>
>>Peter
>>(with not enough room in the garage)
>
>You could fit it in if you got rid of the washing machine.
>
>Given what's not there on that lathe it'll be the best part of £1000
>by the time you've got chucks, face plate and toolpost so it's no
>bargain.
>The lathe does have a "rebuilt by...." label on it so it *might* be
>worth the effort but it would still be an expensive CVA.
>And no, I don't need another. One CVA is enough for most people.

Nah, every home should have two!
<BG>

> Tim
>Leech now has 3 and there's a danger that they'll start breeding.
>

Cheers
Tim

Mark Rand wrote:

>
> It's got a chuck with a backplate that can be copied. Toolposts are just lumps
> of iron and JS's drawings (of get another Multifix out of the cupboard :-).
> I'd be more worried about the claims that:-
>
> "needs a couple of change wheels for the gearbox drive and a toolpost selling
> as is"
>
> That statement makes is sound as if it's only fit for the knackers.

If you have a lathe of that type and vintage, it's probably essential to
have a second one for spares, though a third could be considered
bordering on the obsessional :-).

>
> OTOH, if I wasn't up to my arse in rebuilding Hardinge and Beaver, I'd
> probably be looking for a CVA and would have been tempted to knock them down
> on this one.
>
> What do you reckon.. (Hardinge HLV and CVA Mk 1A Series 3) or (Myford ML7 and
> Hardinge HLV)? Do you think I should offer them a swap for an ML7 :-)
>

Doesn't look like a particularly good deal to me. Looks like it's had a
very busy life, not much tlc along the way and there are very few
accessories, which is where all the real value is. Wait long enough and
everything eventually seems to turn up at auction or on Ebay at half
what a dealer would charge and I tend to wait in a zen like trance,
willing it to happen, (well, sortof) until just the right machine turns up.

A CVA is a beautifull piece of kit though, but there are alternatives.
I'm looking at something else at the mo, even though am still in the
process of rebuilding the Boxford. Strange how this machine tool stuff
can become obsessive, but hopefully more positive news on that next week.

How about a Holbrook 5x20 Minor for example ?. Looks even better than
the CVA.

http://www.lathes.co.uk/holbrook/page14.html

Beautifull, understated looking machine. Art in metal imho...

Chris

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 11:38:19 GMT, ChrisQuayle <nospam@devnul.co.uk>
wrote:

>
>Doesn't look like a particularly good deal to me. Looks like it's had a
>very busy life, not much tlc along the way and there are very few
>accessories, which is where all the real value is. Wait long enough and
>everything eventually seems to turn up at auction or on Ebay at half
>what a dealer would charge and I tend to wait in a zen like trance,
>willing it to happen, (well, sortof) until just the right machine turns up.
>
>A CVA is a beautifull piece of kit though, but there are alternatives.
>I'm looking at something else at the mo, even though am still in the
>process of rebuilding the Boxford. Strange how this machine tool stuff
>can become obsessive, but hopefully more positive news on that next week.
>
>How about a Holbrook 5x20 Minor for example ?. Looks even better than
>the CVA.
>
>http://www.lathes.co.uk/holbrook/page14.html
>
>Beautifull, understated looking machine. Art in metal imho...
>
>Chris

Chris

I've never seen a Holbrook Minor in the flesh although they look very
nice from the description. But you can really compare it to a CVA. One
is 5"x 20" and 3/4 tons and the other is 6.5" x 30" and 1.5 tons.
Apples and oranges.
Compare the Holbrook Minor to a Hardinge if you feel the need, or even
a Boxford if you want to depress yourself.

Charles

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 22:48:05 +0100, Charles Ping
<charles.ping@littlewrongs.org.uk> wrote:
>One CVA is enough for most people. Tim
>Leech now has 3 and there's a danger that they'll start breeding.
>
>
>Charles

Having moved one of Tim's lathes (Ward 2A) both in, and then a couple of years
later, out again, it seems that there is 'possibly' more fun in playing with the
machines than actually using them....

Having said that, Tim does seem to get more out of his than most!

Peter

--
Peter & Rita Forbes
Email: diesel@easynet.co.uk
Web: http://www.oldengine.org/members/diesel

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 07:05:11 +0100, Tim Leech
<duttondock@onetel.no.spam.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 22:48:05 +0100, Charles Ping
><charles.ping@littlewrongs.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 16:17:06 +0100, Peter Neill
>><panuno95-ukrec@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It's like waiting for a Bus, none for ages, then...
>>>
>>>Just noticed one for sale on the inside back page of this months MEW,
>>>from Home and Workshop machinery. It's a model A and is on offer for
>>>the princely sum of ?495.
>>>Which is only twice as much as a coolant system for a Myford shown
>>>further down the page.
>>>
>>>Says it all really<G>.
>>>
>>>Peter
>>>(with not enough room in the garage)
>>
>>You could fit it in if you got rid of the washing machine.
>>
>>Given what's not there on that lathe it'll be the best part of ?1000
>>by the time you've got chucks, face plate and toolpost so it's no
>>bargain.
>>The lathe does have a "rebuilt by...." label on it so it *might* be
>>worth the effort but it would still be an expensive CVA.
>>And no, I don't need another. One CVA is enough for most people.
>
>Nah, every home should have two!
><BG>
>
>> Tim
>>Leech now has 3 and there's a danger that they'll start breeding.
>>
>
>Cheers
>Tim

Just in case I get tempted - how much floor space is needed
and is the spindle nose D1 3 camlock?

Jim

pentag...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 07:05:11 +0100, Tim Leech
> <duttondock@onetel.no.spam.com> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 22:48:05 +0100, Charles Ping
> ><charles.ping@littlewrongs.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 16:17:06 +0100, Peter Neill
> >><panuno95-ukrec@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>It's like waiting for a Bus, none for ages, then...
> >>>
> >>>Just noticed one for sale on the inside back page of this months MEW,
> >>>from Home and Workshop machinery. It's a model A and is on offer for
> >>>the princely sum of ?495.
> >>>Which is only twice as much as a coolant system for a Myford shown
> >>>further down the page.
> >>>
> >>>Says it all really<G>.
> >>>
> >>>Peter
> >>>(with not enough room in the garage)
> >>
> >>You could fit it in if you got rid of the washing machine.
> >>
> >>Given what's not there on that lathe it'll be the best part of ?1000
> >>by the time you've got chucks, face plate and toolpost so it's no
> >>bargain.
> >>The lathe does have a "rebuilt by...." label on it so it *might* be
> >>worth the effort but it would still be an expensive CVA.
> >>And no, I don't need another. One CVA is enough for most people.
> >
> >Nah, every home should have two!
> ><BG>
> >
> >> Tim
> >>Leech now has 3 and there's a danger that they'll start breeding.
> >>
> >
> >Cheers
> >Tim
>
> Just in case I get tempted - how much floor space is needed
> and is the spindle nose D1 3 camlock?
>
> Jim

D1 3 camloc.
Length 72"

Email me if you want more info or a floor plan etc.

Charles

Charles Ping wrote:

>
> Chris
>
> I've never seen a Holbrook Minor in the flesh although they look very
> nice from the description. But you can really compare it to a CVA. One
> is 5"x 20" and 3/4 tons and the other is 6.5" x 30" and 1.5 tons.
> Apples and oranges.
> Compare the Holbrook Minor to a Hardinge if you feel the need, or even
> a Boxford if you want to depress yourself.
>
> Charles

I would agree that you really can compare it to a cva, in terms of the
level and long term repeatability of precision the machine is capable
of. However, it's meaningless to compare the machine weight and for the
sort of work that I need to do, the added swing or bed length is
irrelevant. Like the difference between any world class vs average
product, it's what's under the skin that counts.

Anything else is just willy waving, imho :-). Sorry, argumentative mood
tonight obviously...

Chris

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 17:35:44 +0100, Peter A Forbes
<diesel@easynet.co.uk> wrote:

>On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 22:48:05 +0100, Charles Ping
><charles.ping@littlewrongs.org.uk> wrote:
>>One CVA is enough for most people. Tim
>>Leech now has 3 and there's a danger that they'll start breeding.
>>
>>
>>Charles
>
>Having moved one of Tim's lathes (Ward 2A) both in, and then a couple of years
>later, out again, it seems that there is 'possibly' more fun in playing with the
>machines than actually using them....
>

Actually it's all been entirely logical, I can explain if you've got
half an hour spare <VBG>
Well it was logical until CVA No3, I put a bid in because it was just
down the road, really, and it has some good points though it may be a
bit of a curate's egg.
I didn't expect to be the high bidder!

>Having said that, Tim does seem to get more out of his than most!

They certainly do get used, though sometimes sporadically.

Tim

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 21:18:33 GMT, ChrisQuayle <nospam@devnul.co.uk>
wrote:

>Charles Ping wrote:
>
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> I've never seen a Holbrook Minor in the flesh although they look very
>> nice from the description. But you can really compare it to a CVA. One
>> is 5"x 20" and 3/4 tons and the other is 6.5" x 30" and 1.5 tons.
>> Apples and oranges.
>> Compare the Holbrook Minor to a Hardinge if you feel the need, or even
>> a Boxford if you want to depress yourself.
>>
>> Charles
>
>I would agree that you really can compare it to a cva, in terms of the
>level and long term repeatability of precision the machine is capable
>of. However, it's meaningless to compare the machine weight and for the
>sort of work that I need to do, the added swing or bed length is
>irrelevant. Like the difference between any world class vs average
>product, it's what's under the skin that counts.
>
>Anything else is just willy waving, imho :-). Sorry, argumentative mood
>tonight obviously...
>
>Chris

Chris

My comment was that you shouldn't compare apples with oranges.
I didn't say that one was better than the other. I just indicated that
they're made for different purposes and will suit differebt work.

Taking the bait I'd suggest that your methodology means that it's OK
to compare a DSG17T with a Hardinge or Holbrook Minor. The redundant 3
1/2" of centre height or 28" of bed length are both immaterial because
the "long term repeatability and precision" are comparable? Only when
viewed through the lens of "the sort of work that I need to do".

Equally argumentative tonight <BG>

Charles

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 22:41:02 +0100, Charles Ping <charles.ping@littlewrongs.org.uk> wrote:

>On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 21:18:33 GMT, ChrisQuayle <nospam@devnul.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>Charles Ping wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>> I've never seen a Holbrook Minor in the flesh although they look very
>>> nice from the description. But you can really compare it to a CVA. One
>>> is 5"x 20" and 3/4 tons and the other is 6.5" x 30" and 1.5 tons.
>>> Apples and oranges.
>>> Compare the Holbrook Minor to a Hardinge if you feel the need, or even
>>> a Boxford if you want to depress yourself.
>>>
>>> Charles
>>
>>I would agree that you really can compare it to a cva, in terms of the
>>level and long term repeatability of precision the machine is capable
>>of. However, it's meaningless to compare the machine weight and for the
>>sort of work that I need to do, the added swing or bed length is
>>irrelevant. Like the difference between any world class vs average
>>product, it's what's under the skin that counts.
>>
>>Anything else is just willy waving, imho :-). Sorry, argumentative mood
>>tonight obviously...
>>
>>Chris
>
>Chris
>
>My comment was that you shouldn't compare apples with oranges.
>I didn't say that one was better than the other. I just indicated that
>they're made for different purposes and will suit differebt work.
>
>Taking the bait I'd suggest that your methodology means that it's OK
>to compare a DSG17T with a Hardinge or Holbrook Minor. The redundant 3
>1/2" of centre height or 28" of bed length are both immaterial because
>the "long term repeatability and precision" are comparable? Only when
>viewed through the lens of "the sort of work that I need to do".
>
>Equally argumentative tonight <BG>
>
>Charles

Chris,
Any ideas then what to do with the extra 10 foot of TOS lathe bed that's unused at the
moment then as I'm only machining 10mm thick washers ?

I'd thought about putting it in the cupboard under the tool and cutter grinder but there's
a Bridgeport in there.

Regards,

John Stevenson
L Stevenson [ Engineers ]

Charles Ping wrote:

> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 11:38:19 GMT, ChrisQuayle <nospam@devnul.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Doesn't look like a particularly good deal to me. Looks like it's had a
>>very busy life, not much tlc along the way and there are very few
>>accessories, which is where all the real value is. Wait long enough and
>>everything eventually seems to turn up at auction or on Ebay at half
>>what a dealer would charge and I tend to wait in a zen like trance,
>>willing it to happen, (well, sortof) until just the right machine turns up.
>>
>>A CVA is a beautifull piece of kit though, but there are alternatives.
>>I'm looking at something else at the mo, even though am still in the
>>process of rebuilding the Boxford. Strange how this machine tool stuff
>>can become obsessive, but hopefully more positive news on that next week.
>>
>>How about a Holbrook 5x20 Minor for example ?. Looks even better than
>>the CVA.
>>
>>http://www.lathes.co.uk/holbrook/page14.html
>>
>>Beautifull, understated looking machine. Art in metal imho...
>>
>>Chris
>
>
> Chris
>
> I've never seen a Holbrook Minor in the flesh although they look very
> nice from the description. But you can really compare it to a CVA. One
> is 5"x 20" and 3/4 tons and the other is 6.5" x 30" and 1.5 tons.
> Apples and oranges.
> Compare the Holbrook Minor to a Hardinge if you feel the need, or even
> a Boxford if you want to depress yourself.
>
> Charles
>
LOL, So compared with a Monarch EE 1000 @ 7" x 30" and 10,200 lb the CVA
is a relative lightweight in more ways than one?

Best you rake your eye patch off, Charles, your partiality is showing. :-)

Tom

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 10:05:51 +1200, Tom <tmartin@xtraspam.co.nz> wrote:

>Charles Ping wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 11:38:19 GMT, ChrisQuayle <nospam@devnul.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Doesn't look like a particularly good deal to me. Looks like it's had a
>>>very busy life, not much tlc along the way and there are very few
>>>accessories, which is where all the real value is. Wait long enough and
>>>everything eventually seems to turn up at auction or on Ebay at half
>>>what a dealer would charge and I tend to wait in a zen like trance,
>>>willing it to happen, (well, sortof) until just the right machine turns up.
>>>
>>>A CVA is a beautifull piece of kit though, but there are alternatives.
>>>I'm looking at something else at the mo, even though am still in the
>>>process of rebuilding the Boxford. Strange how this machine tool stuff
>>>can become obsessive, but hopefully more positive news on that next week.
>>>
>>>How about a Holbrook 5x20 Minor for example ?. Looks even better than
>>>the CVA.
>>>
>>>http://www.lathes.co.uk/holbrook/page14.html
>>>
>>>Beautifull, understated looking machine. Art in metal imho...
>>>
>>>Chris
>>
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> I've never seen a Holbrook Minor in the flesh although they look very
>> nice from the description. But you can really compare it to a CVA. One
>> is 5"x 20" and 3/4 tons and the other is 6.5" x 30" and 1.5 tons.
>> Apples and oranges.
>> Compare the Holbrook Minor to a Hardinge if you feel the need, or even
>> a Boxford if you want to depress yourself.
>>
>> Charles
> >
>LOL, So compared with a Monarch EE 1000 @ 7" x 30" and 10,200 lb the CVA
>is a relative lightweight in more ways than one?
>
>Best you rake your eye patch off, Charles, your partiality is showing. :-)
>
>Tom

Tom, Never mind the size and weight Monarch's are ugly, they look like a roundhead
Student, hawk - spit - ding.
--
Regards,

John Stevenson
Nottingham, England.

Visit the new Model Engineering adverts page at:-
http://www.homeworkshop.org.uk/

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 21:44:38 GMT, John Stevenson
<john@stevenson-engineers.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Chris,
>Any ideas then what to do with the extra 10 foot of TOS lathe bed that's unused at the
>moment then as I'm only machining 10mm thick washers ?
..
..

>
>Regards,
>
>John Stevenson
>L Stevenson [ Engineers ]

I've always fancied a long bed Myford, do you think your spare 10ft
would bolt straight on? <vbg>

Peter

Charles Ping wrote:
>
>
> Chris
>
> My comment was that you shouldn't compare apples with oranges.
> I didn't say that one was better than the other. I just indicated that
> they're made for different purposes and will suit differebt work.

Ok, other than swing and bed length, what types of work would be more
suited to the CVA, over, say a Holbrook. Smart and Brown or Hardinge of
similar spec ?.

I guess that my argument is that CVA, Holbrook, Smart and Brown,
Hardinge and others all built the same class of lathe, and despite the
slight difference in capacity and weight (a red herring) they would all
have been bought for and capable of, the same class of work. Looking
through lathes.co.uk website at different machines suggests that there
was a fair degree of competition between manufacturers of "toolroom
class" lathes, so the differences in performance, repeatability, life
and other parameters that define such lathes, is likely to be very small.

>
> Taking the bait I'd suggest that your methodology means that it's OK
> to compare a DSG17T with a Hardinge or Holbrook Minor. The redundant 3
> 1/2" of centre height or 28" of bed length are both immaterial because
> the "long term repeatability and precision" are comparable? Only when
> viewed through the lens of "the sort of work that I need to do".

Not what I said. Would you use a dsg with a 12 foot bed to do small
precision instrument work ?. It may be possible, but it's probably much
easier on a machine designed for the purpose.

Perhaps we should start by defining what parameters are important for
precision instrument or toolroom work ?...

>
> Equally argumentative tonight <BG>
>
> Charles
>

Touche :-)

John Stevenson wrote:

> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 10:05:51 +1200, Tom <tmartin@xtraspam.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
>>Charles Ping wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 11:38:19 GMT, ChrisQuayle <nospam@devnul.co.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Doesn't look like a particularly good deal to me. Looks like it's had a
>>>>very busy life, not much tlc along the way and there are very few
>>>>accessories, which is where all the real value is. Wait long enough and
>>>>everything eventually seems to turn up at auction or on Ebay at half
>>>>what a dealer would charge and I tend to wait in a zen like trance,
>>>>willing it to happen, (well, sortof) until just the right machine turns up.
>>>>
>>>>A CVA is a beautifull piece of kit though, but there are alternatives.
>>>>I'm looking at something else at the mo, even though am still in the
>>>>process of rebuilding the Boxford. Strange how this machine tool stuff
>>>>can become obsessive, but hopefully more positive news on that next week.
>>>>
>>>>How about a Holbrook 5x20 Minor for example ?. Looks even better than
>>>>the CVA.
>>>>
>>>>http://www.lathes.co.uk/holbrook/page14.html
>>>>
>>>>Beautifull, understated looking machine. Art in metal imho...
>>>>
>>>>Chris
>>>
>>>
>>>Chris
>>>
>>>I've never seen a Holbrook Minor in the flesh although they look very
>>>nice from the description. But you can really compare it to a CVA. One
>>>is 5"x 20" and 3/4 tons and the other is 6.5" x 30" and 1.5 tons.
>>>Apples and oranges.
>>>Compare the Holbrook Minor to a Hardinge if you feel the need, or even
>>>a Boxford if you want to depress yourself.
>>>
>>>Charles
>>>
>>
>>LOL, So compared with a Monarch EE 1000 @ 7" x 30" and 10,200 lb the CVA
>>is a relative lightweight in more ways than one?
>>
>>Best you rake your eye patch off, Charles, your partiality is showing. :-)
>>
>>Tom
>
>
> Tom, Never mind the size and weight Monarch's are ugly, they look like a roundhead
> Student, hawk - spit - ding.
> --
> Regards,
>
> John Stevenson
> Nottingham, England.
>
Yeah, but Monarch moved on from 1920, whereas Colchester...

Tom

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

John Stevenson wrote:
>
>
>
> Chris,
> Any ideas then what to do with the extra 10 foot of TOS lathe bed that's unused at the
> moment then as I'm only machining 10mm thick washers ?

Without wishing to stoke the fire, I guess if all you have is a hammer,
everything starts to look like a nail :-). Mosty engineering companies
i've had anything to do with had a range of lathes to suit different
classes of work.
>
> I'd thought about putting it in the cupboard under the tool and cutter grinder but there's
> a Bridgeport in there.
>

Very good, but why do you keep a Bridgeport in a cupboard ?. Is it
afraid of the light ?...

Chris

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 22:14:19 GMT, John Stevenson
<john@stevenson-engineers.co.uk> wrote:

>
>Tom, Never mind the size and weight Monarch's are ugly, they look like a roundhead
>Student, hawk - spit - ding.

Whilst I will grant the advantage of somewhere to stand the teacup, I've
always preferred round castings to square ones. A lot of the later square head
type lathes look as if Hu Swung Lo has welded a pile of manhole covers
together. A good compromise would be the Craven sliding bed lathe at work.
It's a square head design, but all the corners have a nice 6" radius :-)

Mark Rand
RTFM

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 22:30:17 GMT, ChrisQuayle <nospam@devnul.co.uk> wrote:

>John Stevenson wrote:

>
>Very good, but why do you keep a Bridgeport in a cupboard ?. Is it
>afraid of the light ?...
>
>Chris

No, its afraid of the DARK :-)

Perfectly respectable machines (and H&S inspectors) have disappeared without
trace in that stable :-)

Mark Rand
RTFM

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 21:44:38 GMT, John Stevenson
<john@stevenson-engineers.co.uk> wrote:

>Any ideas then what to do with the extra 10 foot of TOS lathe bed that's unused at the
>moment then as I'm only machining 10mm thick washers ?

Machine thicker washers :-)

Jim.

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 22:25:49 GMT, ChrisQuayle <nospam@devnul.co.uk>
wrote:

Chris

Since I started this I'll just put my thinking down now I'm less
argumentative. I actually reckon that we're in agreement.

First point: I reckon the type and size of work defines the machine
needed. I play with vintage cars and that means everything from valve
guides to halfshafts may hit the bench. I don't think that I'll get
into horology. This sort of work makes a generic "Student sized"
lathe useful. It also fits in the back fo a double garage without
being too greedy on space. I did once lighten and Austin Seven
flywheel on a flat bed Drummond but it's not easy and is beyond the
normal duty for the machine. I considered a Hardinge HLV when looking
for a "new" lathe but considered it slighly too small for what I might
want to do. Equally a 15" DSG would take up too much space.

Second point: Given this definition of the size of lathe the nature of
the market for second hand machines means that higher quality machines
don't command much, if any, premium these days. The dual benefits of
the decline in the industrial economy and depreciation I suppose.
Given my level of ability I'll never get the best out of my lathe and
a lesser lathe would do just as well but it's nice to have one (see
the first post in this thread). Therefore when the debate centres on
"define tooroom requirements" I'm not in the discussion. I've never
worked in a toolroom and doubt that I ever will. All that I know is
when a vendor says "Tool Room Machine" that's the time to get
suspicious and would refer anyone to Chapman's "Workshop Technology"
Part 3 for some interesting background reading.

Finally: Stevenson needs all that extra TOS bed to keep the floor in
place and Tim Leech is only trying to counter balance the weight of
machines chez Stevenson in a "trans Pennine" pivot. He's stopping
Skegness going underwater.
And I'm glad that CVA made their version of the Monarch with the
longer bed (30" vs 20") because that way halfshafts fit in nicely!

Charles

On Jul 15, 1:42 pm, Charles Ping <charles.p...@littlewrongs.org.uk>
wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 22:25:49 GMT, ChrisQuayle <nos...@devnul.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> Chris
>
> Since I started this I'll just put my thinking down now I'm less
> argumentative. I actually reckon that we're in agreement.
>
> First point: I reckon the type and size of work defines the machine
> needed. I play with vintage cars and that means everything from valve
> guides to halfshafts may hit the bench. I don't think that I'll get
> into horology. This sort of work makes a generic "Student sized"
> lathe useful. It also fits in the back fo a double garage without
> being too greedy on space. I did once lighten and Austin Seven
> flywheel on a flat bed Drummond but it's not easy and is beyond the
> normal duty for the machine. I considered a Hardinge HLV when looking
> for a "new" lathe but considered it slighly too small for what I might
> want to do. Equally a 15" DSG would take up too much space.
>
> Second point: Given this definition of the size of lathe the nature of
> the market for second hand machines means that higher quality machines
> don't command much, if any, premium these days. The dual benefits of
> the decline in the industrial economy and depreciation I suppose.
> Given my level of ability I'll never get the best out of my lathe and
> a lesser lathe would do just as well but it's nice to have one (see
> the first post in this thread). Therefore when the debate centres on
> "define tooroom requirements" I'm not in the discussion. I've never
> worked in a toolroom and doubt that I ever will. All that I know is
> when a vendor says "Tool Room Machine" that's the time to get
> suspicious and would refer anyone to Chapman's "Workshop Technology"
> Part 3 for some interesting background reading.
>
> Finally: Stevenson needs all that extra TOS bed to keep the floor in
> place and Tim Leech is only trying to counter balance the weight of
> machines chez Stevenson in a "trans Pennine" pivot. He's stopping
> Skegness going underwater.
> And I'm glad that CVA made their version of the Monarch with the
> longer bed (30" vs 20") because that way halfshafts fit in nicely!
>
> Charles

The big failing is that you can't get a Frazer Nash back axle up the
spout. Still it's my only fault so far oh yes and the 2 MT tail stock.
Why so small I wonder. I have also been surprised how much I use the
collets to the extent I am considering a collet chuck for the Boxford.
What are the negatives on the ER32 system?

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 09:58:31 -0700, Anzaniste <andy@monksmill.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

>On Jul 15, 1:42 pm, Charles Ping <charles.p...@littlewrongs.org.uk>
>wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 22:25:49 GMT, ChrisQuayle <nos...@devnul.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Finally: Stevenson needs all that extra TOS bed to keep the floor in
>> place and Tim Leech is only trying to counter balance the weight of
>> machines chez Stevenson in a "trans Pennine" pivot. He's stopping
>> Skegness going underwater.
>> And I'm glad that CVA made their version of the Monarch with the
>> longer bed (30" vs 20") because that way halfshafts fit in nicely!
>>
>> Charles
>
>The big failing is that you can't get a Frazer Nash back axle up the
>spout. Still it's my only fault so far oh yes and the 2 MT tail stock.
>Why so small I wonder. I have also been surprised how much I use the
>collets to the extent I am considering a collet chuck for the Boxford.
>What are the negatives on the ER32 system?

I think it's limitations are there specifically so you can't do overloaded and rough arsed
jobs on what is primary a tool room lathe.

I do have a 2MT tailstock and a 3MT tailstock barrel for mine.

Only limitations on the ER system is that the Yanks never invented it.
They are still stuck with 5C's and the wimpy 110 volt R8.

BTW Arc Euro now sells a 5C to ER 32 adaptor that fits spindle noses and the generic spin
indexers so you can get the best of both worlds.
--
Regards,

John Stevenson
Nottingham, England.

Visit the new Model Engineering adverts page at:-
http://www.homeworkshop.org.uk/

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 17:18:35 GMT, John Stevenson
<john@stevenson-engineers.co.uk> wrote:

>
>
>BTW Arc Euro now sells a 5C to ER 32 adaptor that fits spindle noses and the generic spin
>indexers so you can get the best of both worlds.

Only problem is that ER32 only goes up to 20 mm :-(

Mark Rand
RTFM

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 19:34:42 +0100, Mark Rand <randm@internettie.co.uk> wrote:

>On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 17:18:35 GMT, John Stevenson
><john@stevenson-engineers.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>BTW Arc Euro now sells a 5C to ER 32 adaptor that fits spindle noses and the generic spin
>>indexers so you can get the best of both worlds.
>
>
>Only problem is that ER32 only goes up to 20 mm :-(
>
>
>
>Mark Rand
>RTFM

I know, I know and he's you sitting on 7 tonne of 21mm stock :-)
There's limits on everything, Myfords go up to 5/8" but you can't get long lengths in...
--
Regards,

John Stevenson
Nottingham, England.

Visit the new Model Engineering adverts page at:-
http://www.homeworkshop.org.uk/

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 19:19:41 GMT, John Stevenson
<john@stevenson-engineers.co.uk> wrote:

>On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 19:34:42 +0100, Mark Rand <randm@internettie.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 17:18:35 GMT, John Stevenson
>><john@stevenson-engineers.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>BTW Arc Euro now sells a 5C to ER 32 adaptor that fits spindle noses and the generic spin
>>>indexers so you can get the best of both worlds.
>>
>>
>>Only problem is that ER32 only goes up to 20 mm :-(
>>
>>
>>
>>Mark Rand
>>RTFM
>
>
>I know, I know and he's you sitting on 7 tonne of 21mm stock :-)
>There's limits on everything, Myfords go up to 5/8" but you can't get long lengths in...

I plan to make a D1-3 ER40 chuck, one day when a few more jobs have
been ticked off the list. I reckon ER40 is the logical ER size for
that size of lathe, unfortunately ER40 stuff always seems to be a lot
dearer than 32. Luckily I do have the collets already.

Tim

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 19:19:41 GMT, John Stevenson
<john@stevenson-engineers.co.uk> wrote:

>On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 19:34:42 +0100, Mark Rand <randm@internettie.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 17:18:35 GMT, John Stevenson
>><john@stevenson-engineers.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>BTW Arc Euro now sells a 5C to ER 32 adaptor that fits spindle noses and the generic spin
>>>indexers so you can get the best of both worlds.
>>
>>
>>Only problem is that ER32 only goes up to 20 mm :-(
>>
>>
>>
>>Mark Rand
>>RTFM
>
>
>I know, I know and he's you sitting on 7 tonne of 21mm stock :-)
>There's limits on everything, Myfords go up to 5/8" but you can't get long lengths in...

Aksherly, for me, it's more a case of sitting on 90 5C collets in real and
foreign sizes and no ER collets. Think I could bore out the ML7 mandrel to
fit?

Mark Rand
RTFM

On Jul 15, 10:08 pm, Mark Rand <ra...@internettie.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 19:19:41 GMT, John Stevenson
>
>
>
> <j...@stevenson-engineers.co.uk> wrote:
> >On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 19:34:42 +0100, Mark Rand <ra...@internettie.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 17:18:35 GMT, John Stevenson
> >><j...@stevenson-engineers.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>>BTW Arc Euro now sells a 5C to ER 32 adaptor that fits spindle noses and the generic spin
> >>>indexers so you can get the best of both worlds.
>
> >>Only problem is that ER32 only goes up to 20 mm :-(
>
> >>Mark Rand
> >>RTFM
>
> >I know, I know and he's you sitting on 7 tonne of 21mm stock :-)
> >There's limits on everything, Myfords go up to 5/8" but you can't get long lengths in...
>
> Aksherly, for me, it's more a case of sitting on 90 5C collets in real and
> foreign sizes and no ER collets. Think I could bore out the ML7 mandrel to
> fit?
>
> Mark Rand
> RTFM

Mark, I'm a bit like that but I'm at a bite the bullet moment cos now
I like to use collets I have three machines with a 2MT fitment on them
so..........

John, the "potential over load argument" was the conclusion that I
came to also. Is your 3MT tailstock barrel one of your own making
or was it a standard "extra"?

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 01:44:11 -0700, Anzaniste
<andy@monksmill.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

>On Jul 15, 10:08 pm, Mark Rand <ra...@internettie.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 19:19:41 GMT, John Stevenson
>>
>>
>>
>> <j...@stevenson-engineers.co.uk> wrote:
>> >On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 19:34:42 +0100, Mark Rand <ra...@internettie.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >>On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 17:18:35 GMT, John Stevenson
>> >><j...@stevenson-engineers.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >>>BTW Arc Euro now sells a 5C to ER 32 adaptor that fits spindle noses and the generic spin
>> >>>indexers so you can get the best of both worlds.
>>
>> >>Only problem is that ER32 only goes up to 20 mm :-(
>>
>> >>Mark Rand
>> >>RTFM
>>
>> >I know, I know and he's you sitting on 7 tonne of 21mm stock :-)
>> >There's limits on everything, Myfords go up to 5/8" but you can't get long lengths in...
>>
>> Aksherly, for me, it's more a case of sitting on 90 5C collets in real and
>> foreign sizes and no ER collets. Think I could bore out the ML7 mandrel to
>> fit?
>>
>> Mark Rand
>> RTFM
>
>Mark, I'm a bit like that but I'm at a bite the bullet moment cos now
>I like to use collets I have three machines with a 2MT fitment on them
>so..........
>
>John, the "potential over load argument" was the conclusi

	#1
Charles Ping	Re: Satisfaction..... On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 16:17:06 +0100, Peter Neill <panuno95-ukrec@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >It's like waiting for a Bus, none for ages, then... > >Just noticed one for sale on the inside back page of this months MEW, >from Home and Workshop machinery. It's a model A and is on offer for >the princely sum of £495. >Which is only twice as much as a coolant system for a Myford shown >further down the page. > >Says it all really<G>. > >Peter >(with not enough room in the garage) You could fit it in if you got rid of the washing machine. Given what's not there on that lathe it'll be the best part of £1000 by the time you've got chucks, face plate and toolpost so it's no bargain. The lathe does have a "rebuilt by...." label on it so it might be worth the effort but it would still be an expensive CVA. And no, I don't need another. One CVA is enough for most people. Tim Leech now has 3 and there's a danger that they'll start breeding. Charles

	#2
Mark Rand	Re: Satisfaction..... On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 22:48:05 +0100, Charles Ping <charles.ping@littlewrongs.org.uk> wrote: >On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 16:17:06 +0100, Peter Neill ><panuno95-ukrec@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > >>It's like waiting for a Bus, none for ages, then... >> >>Just noticed one for sale on the inside back page of this months MEW, >>from Home and Workshop machinery. It's a model A and is on offer for >>the princely sum of £495. >>Which is only twice as much as a coolant system for a Myford shown >>further down the page. >> >>Says it all really<G>. >> >>Peter >>(with not enough room in the garage) > >You could fit it in if you got rid of the washing machine. > >Given what's not there on that lathe it'll be the best part of £1000 >by the time you've got chucks, face plate and toolpost so it's no >bargain. >The lathe does have a "rebuilt by...." label on it so it might be >worth the effort but it would still be an expensive CVA. >And no, I don't need another. One CVA is enough for most people. Tim >Leech now has 3 and there's a danger that they'll start breeding. > > >Charles It's got a chuck with a backplate that can be copied. Toolposts are just lumps of iron and JS's drawings (of get another Multifix out of the cupboard :-). I'd be more worried about the claims that:- "needs a couple of change wheels for the gearbox drive and a toolpost selling as is" That statement makes is sound as if it's only fit for the knackers. OTOH, if I wasn't up to my arse in rebuilding Hardinge and Beaver, I'd probably be looking for a CVA and would have been tempted to knock them down on this one. What do you reckon.. (Hardinge HLV and CVA Mk 1A Series 3) or (Myford ML7 and Hardinge HLV)? Do you think I should offer them a swap for an ML7 :-) Mark Rand RTFM

	#3
Tim Leech	Re: Satisfaction..... On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 22:48:05 +0100, Charles Ping <charles.ping@littlewrongs.org.uk> wrote: >On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 16:17:06 +0100, Peter Neill ><panuno95-ukrec@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > >>It's like waiting for a Bus, none for ages, then... >> >>Just noticed one for sale on the inside back page of this months MEW, >>from Home and Workshop machinery. It's a model A and is on offer for >>the princely sum of £495. >>Which is only twice as much as a coolant system for a Myford shown >>further down the page. >> >>Says it all really<G>. >> >>Peter >>(with not enough room in the garage) > >You could fit it in if you got rid of the washing machine. > >Given what's not there on that lathe it'll be the best part of £1000 >by the time you've got chucks, face plate and toolpost so it's no >bargain. >The lathe does have a "rebuilt by...." label on it so it might be >worth the effort but it would still be an expensive CVA. >And no, I don't need another. One CVA is enough for most people. Nah, every home should have two! <BG> > Tim >Leech now has 3 and there's a danger that they'll start breeding. > Cheers Tim

	#4
ChrisQuayle	Re: Satisfaction..... Mark Rand wrote: > > It's got a chuck with a backplate that can be copied. Toolposts are just lumps > of iron and JS's drawings (of get another Multifix out of the cupboard :-). > I'd be more worried about the claims that:- > > "needs a couple of change wheels for the gearbox drive and a toolpost selling > as is" > > That statement makes is sound as if it's only fit for the knackers. If you have a lathe of that type and vintage, it's probably essential to have a second one for spares, though a third could be considered bordering on the obsessional :-). > > OTOH, if I wasn't up to my arse in rebuilding Hardinge and Beaver, I'd > probably be looking for a CVA and would have been tempted to knock them down > on this one. > > What do you reckon.. (Hardinge HLV and CVA Mk 1A Series 3) or (Myford ML7 and > Hardinge HLV)? Do you think I should offer them a swap for an ML7 :-) > Doesn't look like a particularly good deal to me. Looks like it's had a very busy life, not much tlc along the way and there are very few accessories, which is where all the real value is. Wait long enough and everything eventually seems to turn up at auction or on Ebay at half what a dealer would charge and I tend to wait in a zen like trance, willing it to happen, (well, sortof) until just the right machine turns up. A CVA is a beautifull piece of kit though, but there are alternatives. I'm looking at something else at the mo, even though am still in the process of rebuilding the Boxford. Strange how this machine tool stuff can become obsessive, but hopefully more positive news on that next week. How about a Holbrook 5x20 Minor for example ?. Looks even better than the CVA. http://www.lathes.co.uk/holbrook/page14.html Beautifull, understated looking machine. Art in metal imho... Chris

	#5
Charles Ping	Re: Satisfaction..... On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 11:38:19 GMT, ChrisQuayle <nospam@devnul.co.uk> wrote: > >Doesn't look like a particularly good deal to me. Looks like it's had a >very busy life, not much tlc along the way and there are very few >accessories, which is where all the real value is. Wait long enough and >everything eventually seems to turn up at auction or on Ebay at half >what a dealer would charge and I tend to wait in a zen like trance, >willing it to happen, (well, sortof) until just the right machine turns up. > >A CVA is a beautifull piece of kit though, but there are alternatives. >I'm looking at something else at the mo, even though am still in the >process of rebuilding the Boxford. Strange how this machine tool stuff >can become obsessive, but hopefully more positive news on that next week. > >How about a Holbrook 5x20 Minor for example ?. Looks even better than >the CVA. > >http://www.lathes.co.uk/holbrook/page14.html > >Beautifull, understated looking machine. Art in metal imho... > >Chris Chris I've never seen a Holbrook Minor in the flesh although they look very nice from the description. But you can really compare it to a CVA. One is 5"x 20" and 3/4 tons and the other is 6.5" x 30" and 1.5 tons. Apples and oranges. Compare the Holbrook Minor to a Hardinge if you feel the need, or even a Boxford if you want to depress yourself. Charles

	#6
Peter A Forbes	Re: Re: Satisfaction..... On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 22:48:05 +0100, Charles Ping <charles.ping@littlewrongs.org.uk> wrote: >One CVA is enough for most people. Tim >Leech now has 3 and there's a danger that they'll start breeding. > > >Charles Having moved one of Tim's lathes (Ward 2A) both in, and then a couple of years later, out again, it seems that there is 'possibly' more fun in playing with the machines than actually using them.... Having said that, Tim does seem to get more out of his than most! Peter -- Peter & Rita Forbes Email: diesel@easynet.co.uk Web: http://www.oldengine.org/members/diesel

	#7
pentagrid@yahoo.com	Re: Satisfaction..... On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 07:05:11 +0100, Tim Leech <duttondock@onetel.no.spam.com> wrote: >On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 22:48:05 +0100, Charles Ping ><charles.ping@littlewrongs.org.uk> wrote: > >>On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 16:17:06 +0100, Peter Neill >><panuno95-ukrec@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >> >>>It's like waiting for a Bus, none for ages, then... >>> >>>Just noticed one for sale on the inside back page of this months MEW, >>>from Home and Workshop machinery. It's a model A and is on offer for >>>the princely sum of ?495. >>>Which is only twice as much as a coolant system for a Myford shown >>>further down the page. >>> >>>Says it all really<G>. >>> >>>Peter >>>(with not enough room in the garage) >> >>You could fit it in if you got rid of the washing machine. >> >>Given what's not there on that lathe it'll be the best part of ?1000 >>by the time you've got chucks, face plate and toolpost so it's no >>bargain. >>The lathe does have a "rebuilt by...." label on it so it might be >>worth the effort but it would still be an expensive CVA. >>And no, I don't need another. One CVA is enough for most people. > >Nah, every home should have two! ><BG> > >> Tim >>Leech now has 3 and there's a danger that they'll start breeding. >> > >Cheers >Tim Just in case I get tempted - how much floor space is needed and is the spindle nose D1 3 camlock? Jim

	#8
Charles Ping	Re: Satisfaction..... pentag...@yahoo.com wrote: > On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 07:05:11 +0100, Tim Leech > <duttondock@onetel.no.spam.com> wrote: > > >On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 22:48:05 +0100, Charles Ping > ><charles.ping@littlewrongs.org.uk> wrote: > > > >>On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 16:17:06 +0100, Peter Neill > >><panuno95-ukrec@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >> > >> > >>>It's like waiting for a Bus, none for ages, then... > >>> > >>>Just noticed one for sale on the inside back page of this months MEW, > >>>from Home and Workshop machinery. It's a model A and is on offer for > >>>the princely sum of ?495. > >>>Which is only twice as much as a coolant system for a Myford shown > >>>further down the page. > >>> > >>>Says it all really<G>. > >>> > >>>Peter > >>>(with not enough room in the garage) > >> > >>You could fit it in if you got rid of the washing machine. > >> > >>Given what's not there on that lathe it'll be the best part of ?1000 > >>by the time you've got chucks, face plate and toolpost so it's no > >>bargain. > >>The lathe does have a "rebuilt by...." label on it so it might be > >>worth the effort but it would still be an expensive CVA. > >>And no, I don't need another. One CVA is enough for most people. > > > >Nah, every home should have two! > ><BG> > > > >> Tim > >>Leech now has 3 and there's a danger that they'll start breeding. > >> > > > >Cheers > >Tim > > Just in case I get tempted - how much floor space is needed > and is the spindle nose D1 3 camlock? > > Jim D1 3 camloc. Length 72" Email me if you want more info or a floor plan etc. Charles

	#9
ChrisQuayle	Re: Satisfaction..... Charles Ping wrote: > > Chris > > I've never seen a Holbrook Minor in the flesh although they look very > nice from the description. But you can really compare it to a CVA. One > is 5"x 20" and 3/4 tons and the other is 6.5" x 30" and 1.5 tons. > Apples and oranges. > Compare the Holbrook Minor to a Hardinge if you feel the need, or even > a Boxford if you want to depress yourself. > > Charles I would agree that you really can compare it to a cva, in terms of the level and long term repeatability of precision the machine is capable of. However, it's meaningless to compare the machine weight and for the sort of work that I need to do, the added swing or bed length is irrelevant. Like the difference between any world class vs average product, it's what's under the skin that counts. Anything else is just willy waving, imho :-). Sorry, argumentative mood tonight obviously... Chris

	#12
John Stevenson	Re: Satisfaction..... On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 22:41:02 +0100, Charles Ping <charles.ping@littlewrongs.org.uk> wrote: >On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 21:18:33 GMT, ChrisQuayle <nospam@devnul.co.uk> >wrote: > >>Charles Ping wrote: >> >>> >>> Chris >>> >>> I've never seen a Holbrook Minor in the flesh although they look very >>> nice from the description. But you can really compare it to a CVA. One >>> is 5"x 20" and 3/4 tons and the other is 6.5" x 30" and 1.5 tons. >>> Apples and oranges. >>> Compare the Holbrook Minor to a Hardinge if you feel the need, or even >>> a Boxford if you want to depress yourself. >>> >>> Charles >> >>I would agree that you really can compare it to a cva, in terms of the >>level and long term repeatability of precision the machine is capable >>of. However, it's meaningless to compare the machine weight and for the >>sort of work that I need to do, the added swing or bed length is >>irrelevant. Like the difference between any world class vs average >>product, it's what's under the skin that counts. >> >>Anything else is just willy waving, imho :-). Sorry, argumentative mood >>tonight obviously... >> >>Chris > >Chris > >My comment was that you shouldn't compare apples with oranges. >I didn't say that one was better than the other. I just indicated that >they're made for different purposes and will suit differebt work. > >Taking the bait I'd suggest that your methodology means that it's OK >to compare a DSG17T with a Hardinge or Holbrook Minor. The redundant 3 >1/2" of centre height or 28" of bed length are both immaterial because >the "long term repeatability and precision" are comparable? Only when >viewed through the lens of "the sort of work that I need to do". > >Equally argumentative tonight <BG> > >Charles Chris, Any ideas then what to do with the extra 10 foot of TOS lathe bed that's unused at the moment then as I'm only machining 10mm thick washers ? I'd thought about putting it in the cupboard under the tool and cutter grinder but there's a Bridgeport in there. Regards, John Stevenson L Stevenson [ Engineers ]

	#14
John Stevenson	Re: Satisfaction..... On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 10:05:51 +1200, Tom <tmartin@xtraspam.co.nz> wrote: >Charles Ping wrote: > >> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 11:38:19 GMT, ChrisQuayle <nospam@devnul.co.uk> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>>Doesn't look like a particularly good deal to me. Looks like it's had a >>>very busy life, not much tlc along the way and there are very few >>>accessories, which is where all the real value is. Wait long enough and >>>everything eventually seems to turn up at auction or on Ebay at half >>>what a dealer would charge and I tend to wait in a zen like trance, >>>willing it to happen, (well, sortof) until just the right machine turns up. >>> >>>A CVA is a beautifull piece of kit though, but there are alternatives. >>>I'm looking at something else at the mo, even though am still in the >>>process of rebuilding the Boxford. Strange how this machine tool stuff >>>can become obsessive, but hopefully more positive news on that next week. >>> >>>How about a Holbrook 5x20 Minor for example ?. Looks even better than >>>the CVA. >>> >>>http://www.lathes.co.uk/holbrook/page14.html >>> >>>Beautifull, understated looking machine. Art in metal imho... >>> >>>Chris >> >> >> Chris >> >> I've never seen a Holbrook Minor in the flesh although they look very >> nice from the description. But you can really compare it to a CVA. One >> is 5"x 20" and 3/4 tons and the other is 6.5" x 30" and 1.5 tons. >> Apples and oranges. >> Compare the Holbrook Minor to a Hardinge if you feel the need, or even >> a Boxford if you want to depress yourself. >> >> Charles > > >LOL, So compared with a Monarch EE 1000 @ 7" x 30" and 10,200 lb the CVA >is a relative lightweight in more ways than one? > >Best you rake your eye patch off, Charles, your partiality is showing. :-) > >Tom Tom, Never mind the size and weight Monarch's are ugly, they look like a roundhead Student, hawk - spit - ding. -- Regards, John Stevenson Nottingham, England. Visit the new Model Engineering adverts page at:- http://www.homeworkshop.org.uk/

	#15
Peter Neill	Re: Satisfaction..... On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 21:44:38 GMT, John Stevenson <john@stevenson-engineers.co.uk> wrote: > >Chris, >Any ideas then what to do with the extra 10 foot of TOS lathe bed that's unused at the >moment then as I'm only machining 10mm thick washers ? .. .. > >Regards, > >John Stevenson >L Stevenson [ Engineers ] I've always fancied a long bed Myford, do you think your spare 10ft would bolt straight on? <vbg> Peter

	#17
Tom	Re: Satisfaction..... John Stevenson wrote: > On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 10:05:51 +1200, Tom <tmartin@xtraspam.co.nz> wrote: > > >>Charles Ping wrote: >> >> >>>On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 11:38:19 GMT, ChrisQuayle <nospam@devnul.co.uk> >>>wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Doesn't look like a particularly good deal to me. Looks like it's had a >>>>very busy life, not much tlc along the way and there are very few >>>>accessories, which is where all the real value is. Wait long enough and >>>>everything eventually seems to turn up at auction or on Ebay at half >>>>what a dealer would charge and I tend to wait in a zen like trance, >>>>willing it to happen, (well, sortof) until just the right machine turns up. >>>> >>>>A CVA is a beautifull piece of kit though, but there are alternatives. >>>>I'm looking at something else at the mo, even though am still in the >>>>process of rebuilding the Boxford. Strange how this machine tool stuff >>>>can become obsessive, but hopefully more positive news on that next week. >>>> >>>>How about a Holbrook 5x20 Minor for example ?. Looks even better than >>>>the CVA. >>>> >>>>http://www.lathes.co.uk/holbrook/page14.html >>>> >>>>Beautifull, understated looking machine. Art in metal imho... >>>> >>>>Chris >>> >>> >>>Chris >>> >>>I've never seen a Holbrook Minor in the flesh although they look very >>>nice from the description. But you can really compare it to a CVA. One >>>is 5"x 20" and 3/4 tons and the other is 6.5" x 30" and 1.5 tons. >>>Apples and oranges. >>>Compare the Holbrook Minor to a Hardinge if you feel the need, or even >>>a Boxford if you want to depress yourself. >>> >>>Charles >>> >> >>LOL, So compared with a Monarch EE 1000 @ 7" x 30" and 10,200 lb the CVA >>is a relative lightweight in more ways than one? >> >>Best you rake your eye patch off, Charles, your partiality is showing. :-) >> >>Tom > > > Tom, Never mind the size and weight Monarch's are ugly, they look like a roundhead > Student, hawk - spit - ding. > -- > Regards, > > John Stevenson > Nottingham, England. > Yeah, but Monarch moved on from 1920, whereas Colchester... Tom -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

	#21
Jim Guthrie	Re: Satisfaction..... On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 21:44:38 GMT, John Stevenson <john@stevenson-engineers.co.uk> wrote: >Any ideas then what to do with the extra 10 foot of TOS lathe bed that's unused at the >moment then as I'm only machining 10mm thick washers ? Machine thicker washers :-) Jim.

	#23
Anzaniste	Re: Satisfaction..... On Jul 15, 1:42 pm, Charles Ping <charles.p...@littlewrongs.org.uk> wrote: > On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 22:25:49 GMT, ChrisQuayle <nos...@devnul.co.uk> > wrote: > > Chris > > Since I started this I'll just put my thinking down now I'm less > argumentative. I actually reckon that we're in agreement. > > First point: I reckon the type and size of work defines the machine > needed. I play with vintage cars and that means everything from valve > guides to halfshafts may hit the bench. I don't think that I'll get > into horology. This sort of work makes a generic "Student sized" > lathe useful. It also fits in the back fo a double garage without > being too greedy on space. I did once lighten and Austin Seven > flywheel on a flat bed Drummond but it's not easy and is beyond the > normal duty for the machine. I considered a Hardinge HLV when looking > for a "new" lathe but considered it slighly too small for what I might > want to do. Equally a 15" DSG would take up too much space. > > Second point: Given this definition of the size of lathe the nature of > the market for second hand machines means that higher quality machines > don't command much, if any, premium these days. The dual benefits of > the decline in the industrial economy and depreciation I suppose. > Given my level of ability I'll never get the best out of my lathe and > a lesser lathe would do just as well but it's nice to have one (see > the first post in this thread). Therefore when the debate centres on > "define tooroom requirements" I'm not in the discussion. I've never > worked in a toolroom and doubt that I ever will. All that I know is > when a vendor says "Tool Room Machine" that's the time to get > suspicious and would refer anyone to Chapman's "Workshop Technology" > Part 3 for some interesting background reading. > > Finally: Stevenson needs all that extra TOS bed to keep the floor in > place and Tim Leech is only trying to counter balance the weight of > machines chez Stevenson in a "trans Pennine" pivot. He's stopping > Skegness going underwater. > And I'm glad that CVA made their version of the Monarch with the > longer bed (30" vs 20") because that way halfshafts fit in nicely! > > Charles The big failing is that you can't get a Frazer Nash back axle up the spout. Still it's my only fault so far oh yes and the 2 MT tail stock. Why so small I wonder. I have also been surprised how much I use the collets to the extent I am considering a collet chuck for the Boxford. What are the negatives on the ER32 system?

	#29
Anzaniste	Re: Satisfaction..... On Jul 15, 10:08 pm, Mark Rand <ra...@internettie.co.uk> wrote: > On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 19:19:41 GMT, John Stevenson > > > > <j...@stevenson-engineers.co.uk> wrote: > >On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 19:34:42 +0100, Mark Rand <ra...@internettie.co.uk> wrote: > > >>On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 17:18:35 GMT, John Stevenson > >><j...@stevenson-engineers.co.uk> wrote: > > >>>BTW Arc Euro now sells a 5C to ER 32 adaptor that fits spindle noses and the generic spin > >>>indexers so you can get the best of both worlds. > > >>Only problem is that ER32 only goes up to 20 mm :-( > > >>Mark Rand > >>RTFM > > >I know, I know and he's you sitting on 7 tonne of 21mm stock :-) > >There's limits on everything, Myfords go up to 5/8" but you can't get long lengths in... > > Aksherly, for me, it's more a case of sitting on 90 5C collets in real and > foreign sizes and no ER collets. Think I could bore out the ML7 mandrel to > fit? > > Mark Rand > RTFM Mark, I'm a bit like that but I'm at a bite the bullet moment cos now I like to use collets I have three machines with a 2MT fitment on them so.......... John, the "potential over load argument" was the conclusion that I came to also. Is your 3MT tailstock barrel one of your own making or was it a standard "extra"?