# Redlineman's Logan 200 Rescue



## Redlineman

Hi All;

I have been in the midst of a Logan 200 resurrection for about a year now. The back story is that my father bought this lathe many years ago, but never really used it that I can recall. For some reason I never really developed any overriding interest in learning to use these machines (we have two lathes and a vertical mill), which puzzles me a bit, frankly. Fear of my ignorance I guess. I don't know. Well, a sudden impulse to start building my own mountain bikes (another hobby of mine) seemed to kindle a very strong desire to learn how to machine properly. I guess it took the need to create the want. I'm hooked!

Although it is by no means a seminal example of this ubiquitous machine, if you can assume they used sequential numbering, at serial #15235, it is still a very early example of the first of these lathes to wear the Logan name (having been sold only by Montgomery Wards as "Powercraft" previously). the serial places it somewhere in 1942 vintage, I believe; about 2 short years after production began. It is amazing to think of fifteen thousand lathes, and even more so to realize that there were some seventy five thousand still to come before Logan stopped production.

It is a simple change gear model, with both power carriage and cross feeds. It has the very early front opening in the case for the power switch, where most 200s had the drum switch mounted on the primary drive belt guard frame. It also has an early version of the Logan nameplate that you will rarely see, with no model number displayed. I fairly suddenly dove into figuring out why the Logan had never been used, and it didn't take long to find out. Here's where we started;










Sharp eyed viewers have already noted some minor problems, and some truly scary ones!


----------



## Redlineman

No wonder this thing never got used. Here's where the fun really begins;







The bull gear, cone pulley gear, and also the large back gear had teeth missing. As you can see by the brazing that was done, this was not the first time. The back gear shifting rack is nowhere in sight either. The last pic above may explain all of this. It seems quite possible that this lathe was used by a lot of people who had very little idea of how to use a lathe properly, and had very little supervision while doing so. Whatever the history, it was a rough one, quite obviously. And yet, it seems that abuse paid some dividends, in that the things that you cannot easily correct, like badly damaged or worn ways, are in quite good condition. Does every cloud have a silver lining?

Some of you likely noted the broken reversing plunger lever. I don't suppose it is all that uncommon for these to get broken. This was the first repair I made, and I decided to take what I might call a skilled farmer approach. I made the pieces myself, but unlike some farm repairs, to closely approximate the originals.






The tiny little tang holding that cast handle in place is a pretty easy mark for any contact. Not hard to imagine even snagging your pant leg on it and snapping it off. The hand profiled replacement was made from a piece of high grade hardened tool steel, to be a bit beefier than the original. OK, I'll confess. It was carved out of an old McPherson strut shaft from a Porsche! That is what I meant by the farmer part; using what you have on hand to effect a repair.






I made the handle out of a piece of thick wall steel tubing, hammering, welding, and filing it into shape. Quite satisfactory.




Anybody can just buy new parts. This was way more fun. Looks factory!


----------



## Redlineman

-

Some more precursor work.




The main spindle bearings on these lathes were a special preloaded version of a generic bearing that you can source anywhere. This explains why they are so pricey if you buy them from Logan, which is the only source for the correct replacements. Thanks to Logan Actuator for taking the trouble to do this work and provide these resources! The modern version of the Logan company was apparently not aware of this fact when they first started selling replacement parts, and the normal units they were selling produced varying amounts of runout, chatter, and vibration in the cutting process. One enterprising fellow developed a method of preloading the generic version of the bearing by using another bearing nested against the back of the case, using Belleville washers to tension the spindle. Part of that mod was the machining of the back of the spindle bearing mount to achieve a square preload force. Above I am cutting the back of the main case flat on my old US Machine Tools Model V2 Vertical Mill. I have no particular plans to ever utilize this preload method, but it doesn't hurt at all to prep the case for it anyway.




Here is another nice touch, if you have the capability. In an effort to theoretically improve the accuracy of the lathe, cutting the mounting surfaces on the bed supports is an easy way to help square things up.




Here I have flipped them over and am jigging up to cut the tops where the bed rests.




As you can see, it took a fair cut to square up the surfaces. In retrospect, I wish I had cut the tops first and left the base pads for last, as there was more material there to work with. I don't suppose it really matters, though. Square is square!

-


----------



## Redlineman

-

Wading in deeper.




One of the things you always run into when buying used parts is compatibility. Many running changes were made on the fly with machines like this, and here is one of them. My original thrashed cone pinion gear rode directly on the spindle, relying on lubrication to keep it alive and working properly. However, this requires the methodical removal of the oiling screw to accomplish. Probably not something that was commonly done by most operators, and Logan was wise to make the change to an Oilite bushing version of that part sometime later on. I discovered this when I tore down a complete headstock that I purchased for parts. While the spindles are the same, both the gear and the cone pulley are different, and must be used together. This represents a nice unseen upgrade to my early unit, in my estimation.




Here is an exploded version of the main shaft components I took for reference. It's funny. I had no real trouble getting the nut off my original spindle to remove the main bearing, but this one on the parts spindle DID NOT want to budge! I heated and heated numerous times, getting a little more aggressive each time, all to no avail. I sat it aside for a while, and let both it and myself cool off. Eventually, I picked it up one day, and DOINK... the nut came loose with little effort. To each success it's own time, I guess.




Here I have replaced some bushings that were found to be substantially worn. Thankfully, we can all purchase these exact replacements directly from Logan Actuator. You can see the repair done at some point to the miter gear bracket, probably due to the same crashes that took out the headstock gears. Pretty common for this bracket to snap from what I have seen. It seems to be well done and solid enough, so I'll go with it. Some of the teeth on the bevel gear (to its left) that runs in it are kind of wonky, but I think it will work OK. The aforementioned replacement cone pinion gear, and the already mounted replacement large back gear are in the background. The crossfeed idler shift gear you see at the lower left was completely missing from this machine, probably also owing to one of those many crashes. Incidentally, the reference mark you see on the shift gear is a point at which it binds on the other gear of the pair (not pictured). This replacement is in very good condition, and the beleaguered original it runs with..., not so much. A little touch up of the tooth profile on the old member of this team will be necessary.




The headstock was full of the usual grub and grime. All cleaned, stripped bare, and repainted now. I cleaned and regreased the original main bearings, and they seem to be tight and smooth.




This was quite a milestone. I no sooner got deep into this project than I got waylayed by circumstances beyond my control. It would be on hold for a while. After a few months, things have finally returned to some sort of normalcy. All the while, I have been slowly stripping and painting parts as I could, with only the bed and motor drive assembly left to complete. This picture shows the first time that major components have been reintroduced to each other, and the results are quite motivating! Incidentally, that very handsome original early Logan blue/gray color is quite nicely replicated by *Benjamin Moore Baby Seal Grey 2119-30*. If I am not mistaken, and I may be, most if not all of the 200 series lathes were painted this color as standard. It is so much more attractive than the variously bilious or boring industrial shades that most of these machines have been slathered with over the years, mine included. I'm using good old alkyd enamel, and a brush. To even out the finish and remove those inelegant brush strokes, I use the brush to stipple the surface of small parts, and a soft roller for larger surfaces.

More to come................


----------



## gjmontll

Redlineman

   Thanks for the great pictures and details on your Logan rebuilt. Very nice job! And it's quite timely for me, since I'll next tackle the headstock and spindle on my Logan 820 as soon as I finish on the QCGB restoration. Thankfully, all my gears seem fully-toothed. (See my thread "Greg's Logan 820 Restoration.)

Greg


----------



## Redlineman

Hey;

Glad to pay it forward and help everyone else with their motivation, assuage some aggravation, fire their imagination, and save them indigestion! I've got a lot more detailed assembly pics that I took, and it's a good thing with how long this has dragged. I'd be stuck if it were only for the schematics in the manual. Maybe I will post them to my profile so people can use them. I've been pouring over your thread, Greg, as have many of us, I'm sure. Every bit of info and knowledge is helpful. The 820s are quite similar I believe, so hopefully this will be of some help to you.

Now... out to the garage to fire up the Old Prentice Gearhead and see if I can turn some new shaft bushings for it. Kind of interesting using the lathe you are fixing to make parts for itself. Never done it before, but I've got 36" of 660 bronze to practice on!


----------



## TomKro

Redlineman: 

  Your parts are really coming out nice.    Keep up the good work. 

  I saw the pics on your cone/pinion repairs, and was wondering if you could explain how you separated the cone from the pinion.  It looks like the bushings push right through, but how did you separate the last two pieces?  I happen to have a spare cone with a broken gear, and it would be nice to try to salvage the unit for future use.  

Thanks in advance,
TomKro


----------



## Rennkafer

That's looking really nice!


----------



## Redlineman

Tom;

I assume you mean removing the cone gear from the cone itself? Of course there is a set screw there to assure the gear does not spin in the cone. My old gear shows a lot of marks and digs that I now assume are staking done by someone to make it back into the semi-press fit that I believe it should be. Although I did not measure anything - dumb now that I think about it afterwards - I would guess it to be a light interference of maybe .001-.0015 or maybe a tad more. The new gear did not come out of the new cone easily, and I sheepishly admit that the marks you can see on the end of the gear shoulder were put there by me in my inarticulate effort to remove it. I should have heated the cone, and found a more inclusive driver. I even dinged the bushing a bit, requiring some had filing and fitting to re-true its surface. All is good in the end, except for the ugly marks left there by me... for posterity.

:nono:

---------------------------------
Thanks, _Race Beetle_. 

---------------------------------
:ups: On another note, I am VERY excited to soon receive the original Logan 5" 3-jaw chuck I just bought off of ebay. I am poor, and frugal by default as much as necessity. After watching various opportunities to size things up, and letting one "bargain" slip by accidentally, I swallowed REALLY hard in paying $250 shipped for it. However, it looks virtually NOS pristine, with both sets of solid jaws and key, and is an original Logan chuck. I figured (rationalized?) that those chucks were made by Buck Manufacturing. A new Buck, now made in Germany I believe (Forkardt), is in excess of $800 (+ shipping). I got a virtually new Buck chuck for 70% off! I hope it "represents."


----------



## TomKro

Redlineman:   Congrats on the chuck purchase.  I'm sure you'll get years of use from it.  

  Please excuse my misunderstanding.  From your explanation, it appears you were pushing from the inside outward to separate the gear.  Since the far side of the cone appears to have the same inside diameter as the gear, what did you use to fit in there to push against the back side of the gear?  Did you cut some sort of special oval washer to push against or were you able to angle a bar slightly to pound it out?  

Thanks, TomKro


----------



## Redlineman

Yeh;

Going from memory - it's been a few months - the shoulder on the gear is not as deep as the hole in the cone that it fits in. There is a gap in there that allows you to angle into the back of the gear shoulder. I should have thought of a better way, though, as I damaged mine as mentioned/pictured. Let's see... Clamp the assembly on a table and using an internal jaw puller with a really long spindle rod would pull it even.


----------



## TomKro

Redlineman: 

Thanks for the info.  I have to say that I've never touched an internal jaw puller.  I had to look for pics of those type of tools on the net.  

The trick is to find one with the end hooks small enough to fit the narrow gap between the gear and the inside edge of the cone.  
I have to wonder if some other folks on this forum have worked up something special to pull that thing out.   

Did you get your fancy new chuck yet?

TomKro


----------



## RandyM

:thumbsup: Looking Good! :thumbsup: I just love seeing these machines getting a new life. Keep up the good work.


----------



## Redlineman

Thanks Randy;

This one would have been parted in a heartbeat, crashed as it was. I have a much stronger sense of history than that. Heck... it's been in MY family for 35 years. I'm now doing what my father never got around to.

:ups:Sometime this week!




*
EDIT - Just got a tracking number!*


----------



## Mister Ed

That is/was a nice looking chuck. I looked long and hard at it too. Kept scratching my head wondering if it was just cleaned up somehow or if it really was pristine NOS. Heck, even for NOS that thing looked beautiful.

Report back once you get it ... just so I can understand what I missed, LOL.


----------



## Redlineman

Hey Ed;

You and me both, man. I stared at it long and hard as well. Not too long though.

1) No reputable dealer is going to do anything shifty, or risk immediate and permanent destruction of their reputation. This guy has a lot of stuff for sale. I didn't think he would risk it. No spray paint or Photoshop. I'd like to know how they do it too. Walnut shells? Evaporust? I know it didn't look like that when he got it.

2) I look through the superficial quality (shine) and to the edges and surfaces. No nicks, dents, flats, dings, cuts, crashes. Hard to believe, but there it is. You just cant fake surface quality unless you fill and paint.

I'd have preferred a 4-jaw, but... I missed a Cushman last week that was a diamond in the rough. Old and brown, but not a mark on it. Blew that one. I wasn't going to miss another one. It sure better live up to the billing... I'll know tomorrow.


----------



## Redlineman

Funny;

My lathe never had a back gear shifter. Gone. I blew this thing down nearly a year ago now. I'm putting everything together now, and it takes a lot of jiggering and fiddling to get all the spacings correct. Set and reset the gears and such to get it all clearanced. I've been fiddling with the back gear shifter for a while, on and off, but not really intending to lock it down just yet. That's more toward the end. Something about it didn't quite figure, but I wasn't sweating it.

Painted the bed last night, and the headstock cover tonight. I was fiddling with that shifter again tonight, and it still was not making sense to me. I note the locking tab would slip into the case. Hmmm... The end is rounded off. Won't catch. No problem. Pushed the pin out, ground the end of the tab flat, and slid it back together. Still slipped through. OK... tab doesn't stick out far enough. Simple. Slid the tab back out and ground the other end where it bottomed in the slot at rest. Perfect. Sticks out and locks solid. Still this thing doesn't make sense.

I slip the shifter in and engage the back gears. Works. Slide it out to disengage the back gears. OK. Wait... this doesn't make sense. The tab locks it out of back gears? It sticks that far out most of the time? The shifter slides out so far that the back tip of the shaft doesn't stick out far enough to put the locking collar on the end?

Good fortune came in the form of the complete spare headstock I bought for parts sitting there on the bench. Shifter and back gear shaft still in place. No locking tab on this one, but shifting it back and forth, smooth as silk. Wait... isn't this working opposite? Push it in to disengage, pull it out to engage. YES! Now the lock tab makes sense. It locks the shifter OUT to hold back gears IN. I've got the rebuilt one backwards! Who knew? You've got to hold the eccentric back gear shaft up with gears engaged before you slip the shifter in. Works like a charm.

Hey.... I got this!


----------



## stevecmo

Yep, you got it.  Pull out to engage.  

Are you on the Logan Yahoo group that Scott Logan runs?  He posted instructions on the proper way to set this up.......I believe it's in the files section.  If you can't find it let me know and I can provide a link.

Steve


----------



## CluelessNewB

Here is a link for adjusting the back gears:
http://lathe.com/ll-group-archive/logan_lathe_back_gears.html


----------



## Redlineman

Thanks guys;

I had not gone to look for it. Never having HAD the back gear shifter, I had no idea that I was dong it wrong. However, I did realize that something was fishy. The upside is that, before this little discovery, I had a bind in the gears when running in backs. Now that I have the shifter working properly, the bind is gone!!!

Yep... I got this!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

EDIT: The above procedure is what I had done on my own, once the light came on. Since I realized it was not working when the shifter was installed with the back gear shaft flopped down, it made sense to reverse that; bringing the back gears into engagement before inserting the shifter. Good intuition, it turns out!


----------



## Redlineman

-

This chuck is truly unbelievable.


----------



## stevecmo

Redlineman,

Man, I almost hate to mention this.  I see you've assembled the headstock and spindle.  It looks great!  One of the best improvements to these old lathes is the addition of an automotive serpentine belt.  Have you considered it?  Obviously it needs to be installed on the spindle before the spindle goes in.

Now that you have experience in taking it apart, it should be easy the second time.  :whiteflag:

If you are going with a spliced belt........please disregard the above.  :whistle:

Steve


----------



## Redlineman

Ah... but it's not!

Look closer at the drive end. It's bodged together on a trial basis. It's only running on the front bearing. I was just kind of messing and testing to see how things would play out. Quite frankly, I have not decided which belt I want to use. Part of me likes the modern solution, and part of me wants an original leather belt on there. I could very easily just pop down and buy a 39" serpentine belt. For more or less the same money, I could leave what is together where it is, make it truly authentic, and lace on a leather one. I really can't decide.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No one has been able to tell me what that hole in the back gear shifter is for?!?!


----------



## stevecmo

Redlineman said:


> I really can't decide.



Why not do both?  I think you could let one just idle free while using the other.  See how you like each one, then cut off the one you don't like.  Options are good.  )

- - - Updated - - -



Redlineman said:


> No one has been able to tell me what that hole in the back gear shifter is for?!?!



Sorry, I didn't see this before.  What hole are you referring to?  Going from memory there should only be two holes; one for the pivot pin on the little lock on the front, and one on the back for the stop collar.  Now that I wrote that, I don't recall if the collar has a hole thru the pin or if it's just a set screw so you can adjust it.

Do you have another hole?

Steve


----------



## RandyM

Hey Red,

Here is my 2 cents on your belt dilemma. I would evaluate the end use of the machine. If you are going to make it a museum piece where it sits and looks good, then the leather belt is the way to go. If you are going to get it dirty more than it is clean then the belt that is going to be the most efficient and the most durable is the way to go. I am thinking a modern serpentine is probably going to fill those requirements better. Either way, you'll have a fine machine you can be proud to own. Good luck.


----------



## Redlineman

Probably good advice, Randy. I plan on keeping it clean, but definitely using it.

As for that mystery hole (visible in the previous pic), let's try this version of the same pic.....


----------



## stevecmo

Oh......*THAT* hole.

Sorry, don't have a clue.  I just went to look at mine and doesn't have said hole.  The know looks exactly the same so I would say yours is the original knob.......that has been customized.  :whistle:


----------



## Mister Ed

Glad to hear that chuck was as advertised! Good for you.

I think the glare off the chuck made the hole hard to see.:whistle:

No hole in my knob either, at least not a big hole like that. I will say though, my 200 does not have the switch cut out either ... so they are different vintages (your switch mounting was earlier, if I remember correctly). Maybe the knob changed as well?? But  have never seen one like that.

For the belt ... I would put on the serp belt. You can always cut it off and go old school, if you want. I bought a green, one piece, fibery one from Logan ... I wish I would have went with a serp. I can't remember, but when I ordered I believe there were a couple sizes of belts, depending on if the lathe was the bench model (like mine) or the model with the legs/chip pan and post leg.


----------



## TomKro

I think the hole is used to hang a sign to remind you to disengage the bull gear before you hit the power switch...

Seriously, I have not seen one like that.  If you want one without the hole, I have one from a Model 210 that should fit.  Send me a PM with your address if you want it.  The one I have has a jammed up locking mechanism, so you'll have to swap yours, or repair the one that's in it (could be just needs some oil).  

A long time ago, I recall seeing someone on the web who laced a serpentine belt with fishing line, to install it without pulling the spindle.  Since there's no metal lacing, it likely wouldn't be noisy, and there's plenty of room between the serpentine belt ridges to double or triple lace it, if strength is a concern.  I plan to give it a try using one of my old "low mileage" belts, since I usually change them every 50,000 miles or so.  

By the way, the paint job on that headstock is just as nice as that sweet new chuck.  Looking good!


----------



## Redlineman

Thanks Tom;

I'm not sure if the hole bugs me or not. I guess it will until I know what it might have been for. It does not go all the way through in that large size, but steps down right near the bottom to about the size of a wire clothes hanger. No threads or other marks on the outside like a screw was there. It definitely looks factory. Can't figure it out, and I've never seen another one like it. Whatever...

I'll likely slide the spindle out and toss a serpentine on there before too long. Logan says 39". You can lace them, or even skive (Skiving; yeh, really) and glue them. Can't imagine sitting there sanding on a rubber belt to bevel it, but I guess it can be done. Hard to believe a glued belt would hold, but I guess they do, so lacing should be plenty strong.


----------



## Mister Ed

Redlineman said:


> Thanks Tom;
> 
> Can't imagine sitting there sanding on a rubber belt to bevel it, but I guess it can be done.


I have not installed a serp belt yet (so maybe I am confused). But with your spindle out ... why would you need to sand & glue or sew a rubber belt?? You should be able to find one that will fit and if you put it on now ... you would not need to cut.

A 390K7 might work. With 7 ribs the width should be @ .984". The 39.0" outside circumference *might* be tight. But the 390 is the same as the 990 (mm) belt that I see some using.

I also see a 395K6. 39.5" again outside circumference .. but only .844" wide. Or a 400K6 ... 40" outside and again .844". I can't find a 395 or 400 with 7 ribs.

I just about ordered a couple (all less than $10) ... but I got to remembering something about my "bench top" version Logan having a slightly longer belt.

Easiest site I found to "wade through" is :
http://www.vbelts4less.com/K-Section-Micro-Rib-Belts_c_105-3-3.html


----------



## Redlineman

Mister Ed said:


> But with your spindle out ... why would you need to sand & glue or sew a rubber belt??


Well...

Of course you would not, eh?

I don't think the width is very important. Serp belts transfer so much more power than the originals - so they say - that a narrower one might actually be more appropriate in terms of the safety factor offered.


----------



## Mister Ed

You might be right on the width. You do have a good point on the safety factor. And Serps certainly have more surface area which results in more efficient power transfer. But, keeping in mind these cone pulleys do not have the grooves to use all that belt surface area ... I'm undecided on the width. 

I really dislike the synthetic belt that Logan sells. It is better than what was on my lathe before (alligator clipped piece of conveyor belt) ... and no more clack, clack, clack as the clips rotated. But I still have slippage issues with it.


----------



## Redlineman

Hey Ed;

Considering the rather fragile nature of the Logan gears (my perception based on the past carnage visited on mine), I would be very mindful of the safety factor, by which I meant slippage saving you from damaging something if you tried to do more with the machine than should be asked of it. Not knowing much of anything about machining myself, I'm not sure where that tipping point actually is, but I'd rather err on the side of caution. I'm guessing - and that is a guess - that around .750"W is plenty as afar as power transmission is concerned... although it does just now occur to me that you can still monitor safety through tension, regardless of belt width. Perhaps a wider belt set at lower tension would be optimal?

I also wonder what width would track correctly? Does wider track better, or will a narrower belt stay put on the convex cone surface?


----------



## Mister Ed

Red - 
All good questions, and ones that I have been pondering myself. I have had no issues with tracking (in normal conditions) with the Logan Green endless belt (and it is full 1" width). I do have it "pop" off periodically and believe this is related to slippage under heavy load (heavy drilling). Always slipping off the counter shaft (drive) pulley.

Looking a the various configurations of these belts again this morning, I am more thinking about the J series. The J is slightly thinner (less bunching around the small pulley) than the K series. The J would (for a given width) put more rubber onto the pulley ... the individual "V"s are a little closer together. At one inch width the K has 7 ribs that would touch the pulleys, while the J would have 10 ribs touching. And there is more width selection in both the 39" & 40" belts.

I think there are many options that would work and work well. I think I will go with the 1" wide J series, when I pull the headstock in the spring.

Sorry we took your rebuild thread on a tangent!!

Ed


----------



## Redlineman

Not at all;

For it is certainly part of any rebuild!


----------



## Redlineman

Hey;


The last of the major assemblies to be disassembled was the primary drive unit. The drive on these lathes is at once quaint and ingenious. Isolation of vibration seems to have been the overriding goal, which is likely a good idea given the slight overall mass of the machine. These drive units are generally fairly robust and highly functional. However, my own experience, and watching other people's projects, has shown the main drive shaft to be particularly prone to excessive wear in the bushings as well as the shaft itself.






Once again, mine is an early example of the Logan branded 200 model, and there are some distinct differences here in the primary drive assembly compared to the later machines. Mainly they have to do with the primary shaft and how it is carried.






This diagram of the later version shows a simplified mechanism. The weight of the main cover rests on a rod that presses against a boss on the (yellow) counter shaft bracket, which tensions the flat drive belt. Simple and effective. They use two Oilite bushings on the shaft.






This schematic shows a far more complex system on the earlier versions of this lathe. The shaft is carried in two separate housings containing two bushings each. These housing are held in place by opposing jamb-nutted bolts, as shown below.






It is possible to see both potentially good and bad points in either design. The later version in certainly simpler, and therefore less expensive to produce. With the later version, you lose the ability to adjust the attitude of the primary cone pulley relative to its mate on the spindle. Whether this ability to tune the belt for drive accuracy is an advantage is a debatable point. So too is the fact that the early bushing arrangement seems to be prone to severe wear. Did the later single bushing version represent an improvement in that regard? Was it more stable and less prone to misalignment of the bushing holders? I'm uncertain about the answer to that, but it is interesting to speculate on what the reasons for the changes might have been.






One thing is for certain. It would seem that painting the oil caps red did not produce the desired effect. These things don't get oiled very often on many machines. With .025" wear on the thrust side of the bushings at the cone end, and upwards of .100" on the shaft, things were pretty rangy back there. In sizing up this repair, I am contemplating a bit of a hybrid approach, using a new shaft, the original bushing holders, but a solid one piece drilled and slotted bushing instead of the split arrangement. It seems that more bearing area might be beneficial, especially on the heavily worn cone end.


More to come...


----------



## Redlineman

OK;


Creeping along with the resurrection.






Since the evidence suggests the double bushing setup did not work quite as well as one might hope, I took a shot at doing a single bushing instead. A nice piece of tight tolerance (+/-.0005) ground O1 drill rod and some SAE 841 oil impregnated bronze bushings from McMaster Carr should do nicely. My old Prentice Gearhead has oil slots cut in the bushing to wick oil across the shaft surface from the oil hole, so I thought it could not hurt to do that here as well. I purchased a 1/8" burr to more correctly match the size of the oil hole I drilled through the bush.






The original shaft measured .0749 OD where the new one is dead on .75. The bushings measure .751 ID. It is a close fit, but spins freely enough that I think it should be fine. This is my first real experience with "Oilite" bronze, and I am impressed with just how much oil this stuff lays down on the shaft when you spin the bushing holders. It leaves a noticeable film behind. This with the addition of the oiling cups and an occasional drop of some nice gooey oil should keep things free spinning.


I vow to do a better job of oiling them than previous users did!


----------



## CluelessNewB

Redlineman

Did you "colorize" those drive box drawing?  I'm not a big fan of colorized black and white movies but those drawings are a big improvement over the black and white drawings I have in my Logan 820 manual. :thumbsup:

When I replaced the drive box oilite bearings in my 820 I used two part like the original.  The original ones and the shaft looked much worse than yours.   I have been using Mobil Spindle Velocite® #10 Machine Oil for them an all the other rotating shafts on the lathe.  I use Mobil Vactra #2 for the ways.  

Rich


----------



## GK1918

Redlineman said:


> Hey Ed;
> 
> Considering the rather fragile nature of the Logan gears (my perception based on the past carnage visited on mine), I would be very mindful of the safety factor, by which I meant slippage saving you from damaging something if you tried to do more with the machine than should be asked of it. Not knowing much of anything about machining myself, I'm not sure where that tipping point actually is, but I'd rather err on the side of caution. I'm guessing - and that is a guess - that around .750"W is plenty as afar as power transmission is concerned... although it does just now occur to me that you can still monitor safety through tension, regardless of belt width. Perhaps a wider belt set at lower tension would be optimal?
> 
> I also wonder what width would track correctly? Does wider track better, or will a narrower belt stay put on the convex cone surface?



I couldnt aggree any further.  Young, old, new, even hard core machinist better beleive theres going to be the day, a bad day, usually caused
by a distraction.  40 yrs of lathe threading with no instantces, and I crashed my tailstock doing ft hand thread by talking this summer. Thank the machine
gods for slipping flat belt.  Had it been a direct geared lathe?  would be good bye. Not sure on your Logan but our SBends are around
2 inches not tight not loose but a good safety valve...


----------



## Redlineman

Hey;

Yes, I colored them. Makes it much easier to differentiate between the various bits when there's a little contrast to be had.

I might creep out the purists here, but I actually use the "old" oil I drain from the race cars in the shop. It has maybe 200 miles on it or so, and is the slipperiest, clingiest stuff I've ever seen. Mobil 1 15w50, Royal Purple XRF, Brad Penn 20w50, synthetic 75w90 gear oil, and what have you. Toss some in a small jug and take it home for the machines. Use the rest in the daily driver. $5-15 a quart! If it is good enough for $50k race engines, it should work for my old machines.


----------



## CluelessNewB

Redlineman said:


> I might creep out the purists here, but I actually use the "old" oil I drain from the race cars in the shop. It has maybe 200 miles on it or so, and is the slipperiest, clingiest stuff I've ever seen. Mobil 1 15w50, Royal Purple XRF, Brad Penn 20w50, synthetic 75w90 gear oil, and what have you. Toss some in a small jug and take it home for the machines. Use the rest in the daily driver. $5-15 a quart! If it is good enough for $50k race engines, it should work for my old machines.



I have read that EP (extreme pressure) additives used in some gear oils are corrosive to metals that are copper based (bronze, brass etc).  You might want to check what's in the gear oil. Google "EP Additives Bronze" for more info.


----------



## Redlineman

No problem;

Some of the cars I'm referring to have bronze synchros in the trans, and these fluids are what is recommended for them. The mix is at least 90% engine oil anyway.


----------



## Mister Ed

Redlineman said:


> Hey;
> 
> Yes, I colored them. Makes it much easier to differentiate between the various bits when there's a little contrast to be had



Reline ... that drawing modification *R**O**C**K**S*! You need to share (maybe in a diff post) how you did that with the original drawings. I sure know these old eyes can make out your diagram 100% better with the color. The main reason I did not tear into my spindle was because it was so hard to make out that drawing.


----------



## stevecmo

Redlineman said:


> I might creep out the purists here, but I actually use the "old" oil I drain from the race cars in the shop. It has maybe 200 miles on it or so, and is the slipperiest, clingiest stuff I've ever seen. Mobil 1 15w50, Royal Purple XRF, Brad Penn 20w50, synthetic 75w90 gear oil, and what have you. Toss some in a small jug and take it home for the machines. Use the rest in the daily driver. $5-15 a quart! If it is good enough for $50k race engines, it should work for my old machines.



Man, that's just creepy! )


----------



## Redlineman

VEEEEERY incremental progress;

I've been working through some issues. I've been ruminating on a number of things. One was the drive belt. I had finally decided on the automotive poly V belt in the 6 rib variety. Nothing available locally in the correct 40" length, so I've ordered and received a K060400 Goodyear and installed it.
That mystery hole in the back gear shifter finally did bug me enough to change it out. Fortunately, I purchased a complete spare headstock off of ebay some time ago to get a good cone gear (could not find one separately), and it had a good shifter. I've had a binding in the back gears right along, and today's study proved to me that since it bound at about the same point on the change gear end pair (the bull gear never coming close to one revolution) it was in the smaller of the two back gears. Yep, looking at that original small gear LA-124  showed a lot of wear from the old carnage. Fortunately again, the spare headstock had a perfect replacement ready and waiting cleanup. I also took the opportunity to slot the change gear end of the back gear eccentric shaft LA-125


----------



## Redlineman

Sorry about that. I somehow managed - with thick fingers - to get it posted before I'd even completed it!!!! 
Only 30 minutes for editing... really?

*Mods, please delete post #46.
*--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VEEEEERY incremental progress;

I've been working through some issues and ruminating on a number of things. 

One was the drive belt. I had finally decided on the automotive poly V belt in the 6 rib variety. Nothing available locally in the correct 40" length, so I've ordered and received a K060400 Goodyear, and knocked the spindle out far enough to install it.

That mystery hole in the back gear shifter finally did bug me enough to change it out. Fortunately, I purchased a complete spare headstock off of ebay some time ago to get a good cone gear (could not find one separately), and it had a good shifter. All I had to do was swap over my latch key and spring.

I've had a binding in the back gears right along, and today's more focused study proved to me that since it bound at about the same point on the change gear end pair every time (the bull gear never coming close to one revolution), it must be in the smaller of the two back gears. Yep, looking at that original small gear LA-124 showed a lot of wear from the old carnage (it was the only one of the 4 main gears not totally destroyed). Fortunately again, the spare headstock had a perfect replacement ready and waiting for cleanup. Bind is now gone!!

I also took the opportunity to slot the change gear end of the back gear eccentric shaft LA-125 so that back gear adjusting would be easier. NO KIDDING... that works well! A quick trip out to the vertical mill and a couple of passes with a slitting saw had that done and smartly. I could have tossed one in with a hacksaw or something, but using the mill was a lot more fun, and the result looks factory! I further took the opportunity to drill a small hole in the quill sleeve LA-126 and tap it to 10-32 to add an oil hole screw. I should have thought that out better. Drilling it adjacent to the smallest flat belt cone would have made it far more accessible than in the center of the sleeve where I put it. Ah well.

All kinds of jiggering of gears and set screws and so on has finally resulted in a completed headstock assembly... I think. It really does take a lot of fiddling to get everything situated and clearanced properly, but it is far better that it be done now while the headstock is still off than later when it is installed. I think I have got it. Picture below of the headstock sitting on the bed, just for the fun of it and to give me more motivation.




At least I noticed that the carriage rack has to go on before the headstock is bolted down, as one screw is under the case. I took the time to spruce up the variously buggered heads and slots of all the screws before installing them. You can also see that pieces of the rear primary drive are being stripped and refinished. The guard frame has been baked and is done, and the drive box LA-374 is stripped and awaiting its coloring.

At this point, I think it is time to finalize the base assemblies of the lathe. I have been ruminating on just what I am going to do for leveling. Some sort of jack screw arrangement is in order, and this needs to go in hand with a planned raising of the entire lathe to a height more forgiving of my own 6'5" frame. At least 4" is planned, if not 6, but how to accomplish that has eluded me so far. Something quick and easy might not satisfy my stylistic temperament. In any event, it occurs to me that locking this all down and getting the bed leveled before bolting down the headstock would be a good idea. I would also want to stone and finish the ways while they are most accessible.

And so it goes.....


----------



## stevecmo

You're obviously getting close to the end.  Very nice work!


----------



## cbtrek

Great Job, starting to look like it's new again ready for many more years a service.


----------



## Redlineman

stevecmo said:


> You're obviously getting close to the end.


Hehheh;

It doesn't FEEL that way, much...

For the record and future reference; pictures of the backgear eccentric shaft LA-125 slot modification, and the oil port added in the backgear quill sleeve LA-126. It is a debatable point as to whether I would have been smarter to put that oil port under the smallest cone pulley. It would have made access far easier, but would it have oiled both quill bushings evenly? In any event, it is not something that will need to be done often.


----------



## MBfrontier

Hi, Redlineman.

Which Benjamin Moore Paint did you purchase? I've been looking at the Benjamin Moore Website and it looks like Impervo® Interior / Exterior Alkyd High Gloss Enamel is the only paint I see that will work on metal. Is this the paint you used? 

I just purchased a Logan 200 Lathe that I'll be restoring after I run it for a while and develop an inventory of items it will need.

Thanks for posting all this info on your project. It's very helpful.


----------



## Redlineman

Hey MB;

Mine says "Super Spec Maintenance Coating. Urethane Alkyd Gloss Enamel" I'm assuming it is specific for machinery and the like. I told them what I was doing and they mixed this for me. Nice color!


----------



## MBfrontier

Thanks for posting that. I am picking up a quart tomorrow.

Have you assembled your lathe to the point you can tell if the serpentine belt fits the way you want? I'm interested because if it fits well I'd like to order one for my Logan 200. Thanks.


----------



## Redlineman

Nope;

Not yet. I'm still stripping and painting parts, mostly in the primary drive, and other odds and sodds. I'm also working on height jacks to raise it. Need to order some leveling pads pretty soon. I ordered a 40" because that is the belt that Logan specifies, and that I have seen others use for this conversion. Hopefully it works out.


----------



## MBfrontier

Thanks, Redlineman.

I'll keep watching your 200 Rescue posts. I'm nowhere near ready for the belt yet but I'm accumulating a few parts now.


----------



## MBfrontier

Redlineman,

I was looking into the countershaft on my lathe and found there is enough play that it deserves some attention. The shaft and bushings are worn but I don't think as bad as yours were. I'm going to check with my local steel supplier to see if they carry 1045 steel 3/4 inch TGP precision ground rod and purchase a 12 inch piece to replace the countershaft. You mentioned that the Oilite bushings you purchased had an ID of .751 but didn't mention the OD. I tried to measure the OD with my dial caliper and the best I could measure without disassembly is 1.040 in. Is my assumption that the OD of your Oilite bushings are 1 inch?


----------



## Redlineman

Hey;

Here's what I ordered. Pressed them in and there you are. They seem to fit perfectly.

http://www.mcmaster.com/#6391k269/=pz6kks


----------



## Redlineman

Hey All;

A little fiddling yesterday. I cleaned up the rest of the fasteners and bolted the legs/tray/supports/bed together for good. After having it flopping around for quite a while just sitting there loose, it is surprising how solid it feels now. I took this bare-way'd opportunity to stone all the bearing surfaces of the bed down. Although this lathe lead an obviously brutal existence, that damage seems to have saved the machine a lot of normal wear. The usual dings and dents are surprisingly slight, and the original flaking on the ways is still quite prominent throughout, looking very nice after stoning.

I am making 4" steel risers to bring it up a bit. Next step is to drill & tap the bottoms of those and get some neoprene leveling screws to finish that off. This all leading up to leveling the whole thing before bolting the headstock down and adding the other components.

Creep, creep, creep...


----------



## MBfrontier

Hey Redlineman,

Sounds like progress is being made. 

My Logan 200 project slowed down because of the family activities for the holidays. However, I was able to order a 400J10 serpentine belt for $16.00 from my local steel supplier. I used a string to measure the distance between the cone pulleys and I'm pretty confident the 40 inch belt will work OK. 

Our serial numbers are pretty close. Mine is 15012.

I look forward to seeing your posts as you progress on this project. It has been very helpful to me.


----------



## TomKro

Redlineman:

  Can you explain what you were doing when you mentioned that you put a "stone" to the bearing surfaces?  
  While I have my bed apart, I'd like to clean things up as much as possible, but what sort of stone do you use to clean them up by hand?  I'm guessing this would knock off high spots from dings in front of the chuck area on the ways, but a little explanation of the procedure would really be appreciated.   

 Please keep posting the pics.  Your work is inspiring.   

TomKro


----------



## Redlineman

Hey;

Correct. Using an Arkansas red stone to take down nicks and dings and smooth out the surface. Sort of like clay bar on your car's paint, the stone floats on a layer of oil laid down first, much like the carriage and tailstock in normal use. The stone hits any raised areas from impacts and takes them down flush. Obviously you don't want to go so far as to remove the original flaking, since you can't take enough off to remove the dings anyways, but taking the high spots off the dings makes a HUGE difference in how components slide on the ways. You can feel the drag lessen as you continue to stone, and in fact, the function of the stone fairly ceases once the high spots are gone. This is your cue that you are done. It also brightens up the surface and gives a nice contrast to the flaking.

Just paying the inspiration forward!


----------



## TomKro

Redlineman:  Thanks a bunch for the technique/tips. 

Just a few months ago, I tried the auto body clay you mentioned.  That stuff is amazing for cleaning junk from clear coat paint.  

Can you tell me if there's any particular stone hardness or size that works well?  I was checking the web for stone sizes, and many are 2 x 8 inch, which appears a little cumbersome for the small dimensions of the bed ways.  There also appear to be a few Arkansas stones available in the 1 x 3 size, but not too much info on the grit (just soft, medium or hard).  

Happy New Year!


----------



## Redlineman

Frankly;

I have no idea what it is. It is Norton brand, red, and about 1x3. Perfect size for the sides of the Vs, as well as the flats. Judging by the fact that it is very old and yet has no surface wear, I'd guess it is at least a medium if not a hard. Your clay experience will stand you well. The process is much the same, and some of the feel should be as well. You'll remember that feeling when all the debris is loosed from the paint surface. The clay bar just floats. Same thing here.

Last night I stripped the motor stand assembly base and the motor bracket LA-383. I don't know the part number for the early motor stand base because I have never seen a diagram that shows it. The only diagram I have ever seen is for the later bench version LA-17. If you look at the drive box assembly diagram LA-16 in my post #37 in this thread, you can just see the point where it bolts to the the bottom of the drive box LA-374. I'd like to see/have one of those early diagrams, if they ever existed.

Anyway, the paint is dry on the tailstock body, so I could assemble that. I think the only thing not stripped and ready for paint is the belt guard door and the pipe leg for the motor stand. Time to paint some more bits!


----------



## Mister Ed

Redlineman said:


> Frankly;
> I have no idea what it is. It is Norton brand, red, and about 1x3. Perfect size for the sides of the Vs, as well as the flats. Judging by the fact that it is very old and yet has no surface wear, I'd guess it is at least a medium if not a hard.


Since Redlineman's stone is Norton and Red, that should make it a Norton India oilstone (probably fine). They make them in a coarse, medium and fine and are available in many configurations. These stones are aluminum oxide, and a bit harder than the Crystolon stones (grey silicone carbide). The fine stones are an orange, red, brick color and I'd say around 320grit. I think the med India stone is more of a sandy color. And I am not sure on the coarse (they don't make one for my application below).

I have an old Norton Tri-Stone set up (think butcher's knife sharpening). Typically for these you'll find Crystolon coarse and med stones. These would be for "grinding" a new edge on the blade fast, and the stones do wear. The fine in this type of set up is generally a fine India and puts a very nice edge down and wear very little. You may never notice the wear (on any of these stones) in a home situation ... but in a butcher shop/meat packing situation ... the India stones are definitely harder.

With any of the above stones, it is important to keep them flooded with oil (mineral oil is great). It is the oil that carries the "junk" out of the cutting edges of the stone and prevents it from clogging.

Hope I did not get carried away, LOL. And I'm not saying that any of these are the correct stone to use (although the fine India sounds logical to me). But it is some info on these two types of Norton stones.


----------



## TomKro

Redlineman: I believe there's an isometric view of the LA-17 Bench Stand Assembly in the Logan manual for the model 200.  It follows the page which details the LA-960 bed assembly.  The cast bracket between the Drive-Box and the Motor Bracket appears to be LA-391, but I have no idea why that part is called a "Bench Stand".  The part numbers didn't come thru clear on the drawing, so I'm going off the bill of material and weight info.  

Mister Ed / Redlineman:  Good info on the stone selection.  Those smaller stones were a little tough to find.  I just ordered a slightly larger set from an online sharpening supply store.  Hopefully I'll have the stones sometime next week.  

Now I'm wondering if JB weld is soft enough to fill some of the scrapes in the top of the v-ways, and flatten out with these stones (I'm assuming this is cosmetic only, since the flat sides are OK).  My bed isn't quite "clunker" status, but I certainly won't see any original finish marks.   Hopefully, this suggestion hasn't caused any cardiac arrest the true craftsman types.  

Good luck finishing the paint work.


----------



## Redlineman

Good stuff on the stones, Ed!

Hey Tom;

I think they call it a bench stand because that is exactly what it was intended for. Add the legs and pan and you've got a floor model. The real problem is that the LA-17 schematic depicts the late model system. The early type is very much different. If you look at LA-391, then LA-1084 is the peg and 0647 is the rubber cap. LA-396 pedestal leg sits under the peg/cap. The early 200s had a large base casting with two set screws and a pipe leg. Much different. I've not found a schematic for the early type yet.


----------



## TomKro

Redlineman:  

For some reason I mistakenly thought the pipe and setscrew setup was the newer version (compared to the cast pedestal).  I just noticed that the drawing in the manual indicates the pipe pedestal drive box was used until SN 40115.  

 There's no isometric view, but page K-2 of the manual reprint has a decent side view of the pipe/setscrew setup.  That setup sure makes it easier to swap out the pipe, to work with your 4 inch riser blocks (assuming it's a standard size pipe).  

I hope your painting is coming along faster than mine.  I was solvent washing the Bench Stand casting and noticed a few deep pits, so now the filler is curing.   I have to find something softer than JB weld.  It sure takes quite a bit of sanding to blend in.


----------



## Redlineman

Tom;

Just use regular polyester body filler. Bondo. Sets fast and sands easily.

As for the early peg leg, I'd be surprised if they built another 25k lathes after mine with that setup, taking serial numbers numerically. I'm inclined to think that Logan changed their numbering scheme in there somewhere.

You know... I never even thought about getting a longer leg....   :nuts:


----------



## Redlineman

-

More small morsels;




When you are taking stuff like this apart, you don't really think about any difficulty in reassembly. I mean, it's pretty basic stuff here, eh? Well, even on so basic an assembly, there are many little details that do not register and will easily slip away from you. For those gathering courage by reading this thread, I will offer a huge piece of sage advice; TAKE PICTURES! Take a stupid amount of pictures from a lot of angles, trying to capture every detail, every part, every fastener. Yes, I took a fair number of pictures, but in the end seemingly not enough. I have managed to catch some small details that were crucial in figuring out how something was supposed to go, but sometimes it was purely by accident. Here's an example;




This is the rear bolt that holds the Guard Frame LA-394 to the Floor stand LA-377. Mine has two holes, the use of either altering where the Pulley LA-912 will sit inside the guard frame. Not only do I have no clue whether this was original to these lathes or added by someone to overcome some marginal non original hardware arrangement, but I could not remember which hole had been used previous to my tearing it apart? I got lucky, and a photo I had taken to show how the motor was mounted just happened to catch a glimpse of this spot in the background. You can NEVER have too much information when it's time to reassemble. TAKE MORE PICS!

I also had a happy discovery. All the parts were grouped and bagged upon disassembly as you would expect. One of those bags had wandered off, visiting various locales over the last year - my basement shop, my car, my business shop, etc. I remember them in those places. At some point that bag kind of just slipped under the radar. It was the bag with all the compound rest hardware in it. That little sandwich bag containing over $200 of prize bits had gone missing. All the obvious places checked failed to produce said bag, and ideas were getting slim. Damn... Quite why they had made it to my dresser I'm not sure, but it was good to know that I'd put them somewhere safe... if only moderately illogical! I'll need to have a look again to see if there is anything in need of repair or replacement. Sure would be nice to have the dough for new feed screws and nuts!

One thing I know I need is a motor pulley LA-349/1037. My motor is a non original 1/2 horse GE with some generic single pulley installed. If any of you boys have a spare original pulley for a 5/8 shaft you'd entertain selling, I'm interested!


----------



## Chuck K

I have a complete drive unit from a 200 if I haven't robbed the pulleys for a past project.  If I get time tomorrow I'll see what I have.

Chuck


----------



## MBfrontier

It's nice to see your drive box assembly coming along nicely. If for any reason you need some pictures taken to clarify any portion of your assembly let me know and I can take the pictures you need and upload them to this thread. 

I checked some of the pictures I have to see if there were two rear mount holes where the belt guard mounts to the frame and found mine only has one. Perhaps an additional hole was drilled when the motor was replaced? My lathe has an Atlas 1/2 HP motor in it so I think it was changed at some time along the way. Here's a picture of my drive box showing the rear belt guard mounting hole:


----------



## Redlineman

Hey;

Thanks MB. I sort of thought the hole was added. I chose the hole by eye based on how it centered the guard frame with the shaft clearance notches in the top of the drive box. Finding the photo I took had confirmed my hunch after the fact. Not sure what purpose the off-center hole might have had. Somebody using a shorter flat belt? Maybe a production flub?

Thanks, Chuck.

One thing I am wondering. The bolts that attach the drive box to the stand frame are fairly loose in their holes, allowing the two pieces quite a bit of radial swing relative to each other. I'm wondering if proper alignment of these is going to effect belt drive at all, considering that the primary shaft pulley is flat?


----------



## Chuck K

I checked for a pulley today.  Apparently I not only used the pulley but also the motor on a previous project.  My memory leaves something to be desired. 

Chuck


----------



## MBfrontier

Hey, Redlineman.

I noticed that the bottom of your belt guard has been cut out. Mine is solid. I've attached a picture which isn't very good for comparison but you can see the ridge goes completely around the inside of the guard. Just FYI.


----------



## Redlineman

Hmmmm....

Never picked up on that. I've never any other part but this one in hand. Someone down through the years obviously played some games with the drive system on this thing. One thing I did note on mine is that the rear most hole in that guard frame where the bolt goes to hold it to the drive box, is not drilled in the center of the casting. It is offset, so far down that you can't get a washer under the bolt head. I see your hole is in the same place, so that is original. No big deal, just a curious point.

If you add the fact that my drive box has two holes in it for shifting the position of the guard frame with the piece cut off of same, it seems likely someone had some kind of huge pulley on the motor at some point, for some reason. We'll call it _personality_.


----------



## gjmontll

Redlineman

Your Logan 200 work seems to be proceeding very nicely. You are a little bit ahead of my Logan 920 restoration, I have my primary drive all torn down, in the process of cleaning/stripping/repainting. Here, for what it may be worth, is a shot of my LA-363 Guard Frame, with just two holes. You can see they are asymmetrically placed, both laterally and vertically. And right in the center of the cross arm is a slight square bump. It only shows on the belt side, not on the back. I have no idea what it is from, maybe an artifact of the casting? Or maybe there was a hole there that gotten plugged/patched? When I strip the paint, I'll maybe know better.
And thanks for the recent info on the backgear shaft. I'll be starting on the headstock after I finish the drive. Fortunately my drive unit seems to have nothing missing or worn.

Greg


----------



## Redlineman

Thanks to MB & G;

We see that the holes in the guard frame are not drilled symmetrically. Kind of weird, but... whatever.

G, please fill me in on what a 920 is? Don't worry about thread jack. There are so many different "models" from this company - and little documentation - and I'm really curious as to what the differences are between them. They all have so much in common, and the differences are very subtle at times. For instance, I know that an 820 is essentially a 200 with QCGB. A 400 is a smaller version of a 200. Beyond that - and there are TONS of different models - I don't know the differences. Feel free if you'd like.

Now in the process of cobbling together a motor drive pulley. None for sale used, and the price of a new one from Logan is pretty spendy, on the face of it. I'm not opposed to buying one from them, especially if it turns out to be 6'o one, half dozen o' t'other.

- - - Updated - - -

And another thing...

Can anyone supply a good clear photo of the latch that holds the pulley cover closed? Mine is missing - replaced by a piece of a coat hanger - and I have never seen a good image of what it supposed to look like. I'm pretty sure it is a simple flat steel spring clip as opposed to a fancy latch.


----------



## gjmontll

Redlineman

Sorry for my typo about the mysterious model 920. It's a Logan 820! (As I have be writing about in the "Greg's Logan 820 Restoration" thread.

You asked for, "Can anyone supply a good clear photo of the latch that holds the pulley cover closed? Mine is missing - replaced by a piece of a coat hanger - and I have never seen a good image of what it supposed to look like. I'm pretty sure it is a simple flat steel spring clip as opposed to a fancy latch."

So I just went and took a picture. I hadn't realized it before, but mine looks like a non-standard clip too. It has more springiness than a coat hanger, but is only 0.065" diameter. Seeing how there is the wider notch cut in the rim, maybe it is like the clip that is on my change gear guard. However, my Logan Parts Catalog shows that the Change Gear Guard (LA-228) doesn't use a clip, rather it has a LA-514 knob. Not on my lathe!



   Greg


----------



## MBfrontier

Redlineman,

The latch is listed in the parts list as part no. LA-364. I checked the Logan Lathe Website and that part no. doesn't exist. I also checked the Parts for Logan Lathes Catalog and didn't find it there. It's just a little piece of spring steel bent to retain the door. You can see that mine needs a little bending to completely close the door properly but breaking it is a likely outcome. It shouldn't be very difficult to make one. It looks like my lathe has the original latch and here's a couple pictures of it:


----------



## Chuck K

The latch MBfrontier shows is the original.  I guess it's not worth it for Scott Logan to repop those latches and sell them, although it would seem that they would be in big demand.  It's kind of rare to find them intact. I've tried fashioning spring clips with limited success.  A common magnet latch from a cabinet will hold the door shut.  I've thought about trying 3M Dual Lock the next time I have one that needs a latch. I'm sure there are a lot of ways to hold the door shut.

Chuck


----------



## TomKro

Here's a tracing of the latch.  




I believe the end radius is cut to about 5/16 inch, forget to put that on the tracing.  

Now you have to start hunting for old metal banding.  You just can't have enough of that stuff...

Good Luck.  
TomKro


----------



## Redlineman

WOW!

Lot's of fuss over a latch! I had figured what it was supposed to be, knew that they were not shown in the prints, that originals were not common at all, nor available new. I just wanted to see one for real. I had thought of spring steel like the original, a toggle latch, and I like the magnet idea, except for the empty holes left behind. I'll decide on something by and by.


----------



## Redlineman

-

Trudging along.







Dry run on the primary drive unit. Learning how it all goes together. Taking something apart, and even taking a lot of pics, is no assurance that you will understand the nuances of how it needs to be to function properly. My photos and the schematics told me where things went, but not how, and there is a definite how to this early system. The locating pins on either side of the bushing collars cannot be tightened nearly as tight as you might expect or assume. The proper tension is surprisingly light, taking very little more than finger tightening to start to actually bind the shaft. Not what I expected. Probably over complicated in some sense, compared to the later unitized arrangement, but I sort of like the relative complexity, which I find slightly elegant. There may even be some advantage, although I have not discovered it yet if there is.




The real reason for this trial run on the primary was to see where I stood in the pulley department. You can see the incorrect adjustable width pulley that was on it prior to my teardown. I needed to get a sense of whether the motor shaft was long enough to set the pulleys in the right position, and if there was room for the proper double pulley to fit the shaft. With this pulley flush on the end of the motor shaft, it is pretty well aligned with its mate on the big end, and there is room to the inside for the small pulley. The previous belt is marked 5L520R, which I assume is 52", and adjusting it revealed it to be too long for the job; the belt rubbing on the bottom of the guard frame when well tensioned. Logan calls for an LA-388 51" belt, and I'll very likely use a 4L instead. With this fit information I can work on my pulley solution, whose direction is uncertain at this point. More projects...


----------



## toag

this thread is like machine porn!
trudge on good sir, and well done!


----------



## TomKro

That assembly is coming along nicely.  

As to the belt, the one laying on my shelf says 4L410 and it appears to fit the pulley nicely.    

As to the OEM pulley, mine is clearly size 4.  OD on large pulley is about 4-1/4 inch, OD on smaller one is about 2-5/16 inch.  It looks like the two pulley grooves are on about 3/4 inch centers, so you may need some spacers if you're putting something together.  

Good luck.


----------



## Redlineman

Thank guys;

Toag, I'm just cleaning, painting, and reassembling, that's all. The bling has yet to come!  I'm going to have a little fun here and there. Thanks for the support, from you and everyone!




This is a pic of the one that Logan sells as a replacement for the 11" models. It does not have to proper sizes for the 10" models according to what they had new. They also list the correct smaller size, but show no pic. I can only assume it is similar. I don't begrudge them their profit, and as someone else said somewhere, I'm sure they are not getting rich selling Logan parts. However, $130 has to go a long way in my world. I'll be ordering sheaves and a belt from Surplus Center today. All in around $20 + shipping!


----------



## Chuck K

The last time I needed a motor drive pulley, I ended up making one.  Like you said, 130.00 is way too much to invest in a pulley for a lathe project.  4" diameter alum isn't cheap either but you don't need much of it.  For me the toughest part is broaching a decent keyway.  I don't have a set of broaches.  I would think if you're patient someone should be able to come up with the pulley you need....for a lot less than 130.00.  I'll keep searching through my drawers and shelves.  

Chuck


----------



## toag

Without a broaching kit, you can fnd a bud with a shaper, try filing or lock spindle on the lathe and use the carriage to broach, takes forever as you can only do real small cuts.  there Iis a video of it on the webs.


----------



## Redlineman

Again;

I don't begrudge Logan a fair profit, and if I was made of money it would not be an issue and I'd get "the real thing" and support their existence. It probably cost them quite a lot to have those made, even with automated processes. I am always tempted to make things instead of buy, but I would need to buy a bunch of tools that I don't have just to even make one. Six o'one, half dozen o'tuther. For $24 I bought two sheaves and a belt from Surplus Center. I can imagine having to dink around with the pulleys to get the spacing right, but I think I can git'r dun. The sheaves are not exactly the correct OD, but I guess close is close enough.


----------



## toag

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcU0LTavzDM

heres what i meant about broaching on a lathe.


----------



## Redlineman

Thanks TOAG;

I sort of had the gist of the lathe broaching, but I always like to SEE things done.

Thanks to the good folks here for their willingness to help without resorting to condescension and ridicule. Apparently sheaves are too rudimentary a topic for some forums to manage. :nuts:


----------



## Mister Ed

Can't believe there is not one on Epay! I guess they just leave them on the motors then they are pulling them apart.

There is a guy on CL from Lake Villa IL, that usually has some stuff listed. Has both 10 & 11" parts.
Here is a link:
http://chicago.craigslist.org/nwc/tls/4285778039.html
Looks like he only takes replies by phone ... but it might be worth a shot.


----------



## Redlineman

-

Exceptionally minor forward progress;




No luck on a correct used early pulley, only a new one from Logan. Good reminder from someone on Surplus Center. Didn't think of them. Not overly keen that they are from _Chiner_, but that's the way things are these days. Nicely enough made, at least. Pulleys are not the exact size "required," but pretty close. Two of them + a belt + shipping; all in for $30. With the addition of a new set screw hole****, it should work just fine. Worst case, I might have to mill down the shoulder on the outer pulley a tad, but a straight edge says it clears as of now.


**** How much patience does it take to make a set screw hole? Quite a lot, in this case. How much FEEL? Quite a lot. Cue that twangy guitar from the Cialis commercial. "This is the age of knowing how to get things done" the man says. Indeed. How many taps and screws have you busted, learning how to feel The Edge? Chart says #7 drill for a 1/4-20 tap thread. Tap says "You really gonna twist me this hard?" (Cue the guitar again) Guy who knows how to get things done says, "Nah... I'm taking you out farther, son." Step by step by step all the way to a #1 'till the tap stops _jawing _and starts working. Counter bore the top of the hole a 1/64th over even, because the tap is too short. No snapped tap, no tears, no worries, done. That was a lot for a simple hole. Play that guitar. Where's that babe, and those bath tubs?




Like my work stand? :tiphat:


----------



## toag

hahahaha!
i have oversized a few holes to tap 1/4-20's.  I look at the material being tapped, if its AL or brass, i go with a 7, if its steel or harder, i go a smidge bigger and save the tap.  there isnt anything more frustrating than a broken tap... save maybe a broken "easy-out" in a broken bolt.  
back story time!
I was fixing a test stand once in a few careers ago, and it had a broken bolt in it.  I had never worked with the engineer before and he thought i was a bit green. the lead engineer saw the broken boldt and said  'there are some 'easy-outs' in that drawer'.  i was milling something on the bridgeport that was theere and without looking up i said "there is nothing easy about easy-outs".  he replied "oh, you've used them before".  that day on he asked for me to do his test set-ups and really treated me like a seasoned pro... often asking my opinion (i know i was shocked too).

you lathe is really looking nice, love the work stand.  let me know if you want to trade it for a couple CMU blocks :rofl:!


----------



## CluelessNewB

Redlineman said:


> WOW!
> 
> Lot's of fuss over a latch! I had figured what it was supposed to be, knew that they were not shown in the prints, that originals were not common at all, nor available new. I just wanted to see one for real. I had thought of spring steel like the original, a toggle latch, and I like the magnet idea, except for the empty holes left behind. I'll decide on something by and by.



I missed this latch discussion a couple of weeks ago but I figure I might as well show mine.   The original on mine was missing and had been replaced with a bent nail.  I scrounged around the shop and found this little scrap of brass channel, a wing bolt and two screws.   It was originally intended to be a temporary fix but it has worked so well I don't think I will be changing it anytime soon.


----------



## Redlineman

Hmmm...

That's pretty resourceful. MacGyver would approve. Mine had a piece of wire. Gives me a further idea on that theme. What about replacing the wing bolt with a spring pin? not that I want to over think it, necessarily. if I remember next time I order from McMaster Carr or similar, I might snag something similar. Might make something along those lines. Whatever. Thanks for posting!


----------



## Redlineman

*It's the Little Things that Drive You Nuts!*

Hey;

I wrote recently about taking lots of pictures before you begin a project like this so that getting it back together will be easier. So easy in this digital age. Take lots of pics I said. You know... my own advice really helped again, if by accident!

Here's a little trifle that has taken some valuable moments out of my life this afternoon. How do the little brackets go that mount the drive box to the back of the headstock? No big deal. Working on the sage advice of those who steered you into buying the parts manual, you find the requisite page, peruse the diagram, and get the info you need. This is how part LA-657 sits, and on they go. This is an excerpt of my colored version of the Logan isometric diagram that is in the parts manual, clearly showing how they sit in relation to the mount holes in the drive box.




So on they go and... what? This can't be right... A quick check with a ruler easily confirms this snap diagnosis. Huh? Said documentary photos loom large at these moments, so back into the computer files to see what we can learn. Not a one of them was taken to document this little detail. After all.. who knew? Ah.... wait... there's one that accidentally shows the direction they go! The diagram is WRONG! :angry:

Out of curiosity, I take a look at another piece of documentation that "far too many" idle hours floating about the internet have produced. An early sectional view of the same assembly that predates the isometric versions that Logan did later. These early schematics are decried as hard to decipher relative to the exploded versions that came later, but they do prove their worth. Yet more idle moments have seen me coloring and cleaning them to improve the contrast.




What gives? This clearly shows the mounts being reversed from the other diagram. Was there some sort of running change in the parts spec, or did Logan blow it when drawing up the later diagrams? Hard to say, but the combination of this early schematic and my photos set me on the right course, at last!

Sort of... If that was a puzzle, this is a conundrum. How do they go now that I know how they go? These are supposed to be the same part, but these... aint. Should I have freekin mark matched these damn things before I took them off. Again... who knew?




Here they are on a surface plate, lined up on their perimeter. One can only imagine the speed at which these lathes were being thrown together back in the war years. Hey... whaddaya want for a dollar-two-ninety-eight? Well, maybe three-two-ninety-eight, but... They clearly had a part tolerance here that you could drive a truck through. Do these angle up or down? The guy jigging these up on the grinder clearly had his good and bad moments!




In the end, I don't imagine it is very critical and can be worked around by the now-seen-as-wisely generous tolerance on the mounting holes. It'll work out just fine, but it sure throws you for a loop, if only momentarily.


----------



## TomKro

I'm guessing Logan was counting on those rubber bushings to make up for misalignment.    

I have steel shoulder plugs instead of the rubber bushings, which can't do much for vibration control.  Time to start looking for soft plastic or some other suitable replacement.


----------



## CluelessNewB

When i was doing mine my rubber bushings #658 were toast.  I couldn't find a correct size bushing with a flange on it like the original.   I ended up using a non-flanged bushing, a rubber washer and replaced the straight pin with a new pin with a head on it to hold it in place.  The "new pin" is really just a partially threaded hex head machine screw with the threads cut off.  The rubber washer and bushing came from McMaster Carr but unfortunately can't find the old order with the part numbers.  Below is a crude paint drawing.  I guess I should really have drawn the rubber washer on the bottom rather than the middle to show the order of assembly correctly.


----------



## Redlineman

Hey;

Logan does sell something what appears to be a direct replacement for LA-658. One of mine is OK, but the other broke apart. Sometimes it's just easier to go this way, regardless of price. Save the brain cells for more important tasks.

http://store.lathe.com/nsearch.html...chsubmit=Search&vwcatalog=yhst-92110205831552

I managed to lose the tiny Woodruff key for the tailstock hand wheel. Now I get to buy a bag of 50 from McMaster Carr to get the one I need. 
Anybody happen to have one they can measure? The slot measures closest to 3/32 x 3/8, as near as I can tell...


----------



## jererp

I purchased a bushing from Logan Actuator, thinking they would be a molded urethane. When I got one, it was actually a black, relatively hard plastic which had been machined on a lathe. The old bushings were rather soft, and allowed the motor stand to vibrate quite a bit.  I installed the one I purchased, as well as another plastic one I made myself, and between the two, the lathe runs much quieter.  

A side note.....the reason I only bought 1 bushing was a mistake on my part.  Looking at the picture on Logan Actuators' site, it showed 2 bushings so you could see both front and side views, so seeing two in the picture, I thought ordering a quantity of 1 would get me 1 set.  Not so.  If I would have read the fine print, it stated it was for a quantity of 1 piece.


----------



## TomKro

On my tail stock, that little key measures 0.093 x 0.490 long x 0.191 deep from face to flat.  

I was just at Tractor Supply and they sell small bags of those assorted keys.  If you have one close you may be able to get a bag of assorted keys for about the cost of mail order shipping.


----------



## Redlineman

GREAT Info, Guys!

I know that Woodruff keys are not exotic, but that sort of thing is not very common in my area. There's very little manufacturing, so the hardware is really lacking. I'll check in at TS tomorrow!

Looks like I will try and come up with something for the bushings as well. $30 for bushings doesn't suit my flinty side. Never tried to machine a hockey puck before, but it seems like a pretty good durometer for this. Interesting that harder was quieter.

I just bolted the headstock on for good and I'm fiddling with basic positioning/leveling of the thing right now. The peg leg and lack of solid bushings in the drive box brackets makes it kind of a pain, really.


----------



## MBfrontier

I picked up some Delrin black rod from a local Amish hardware store and turned down two bushings to attach the drive assy. to the headstock. I was going to order what I thought were rubber bushings from Logan but my bushings were 5/8 in. dia. and Scott said he didn't stock that size. I was concerned about using plastic instead of rubber thinking the rubber would eliminate some vibration but the plastic seems to be working fine so far.


----------



## Redlineman

*Chuck Whore*

That's right;

I think I'm becoming a chuck whore. I've now got 4 of them for the Logan.




From Left-to-Right; A really nice Buck 6" 4 -jaw inde #144 that I just got today, a very clean and extremely rare Toledo Timer Co. 5" 4-jaw inde, a super clean and moderately uncommon D.E. Whitton 5" 3-jaw scroll, and the absolutely pristine Logan 5" 3-jaw scroll. Other than needing the correct backing plate for the Toledo, they are ready to work. Apart from the general fun of _Ol Arn_, I have a particular fascination with chucks, for some reason. I wanted to finish out my little group here with a Westcott - my pre-teens Prentice 16" Gearhead has a Westcott on it - but this Buck came along and was too nice to pass up.




Who needs 4 chucks? Why spend all that money? Yeh...well... I like'em. That's enough. I've got a total of $475 in these things. I figure at new prices for a Bison, I've still got $2-300 left to spend!

:nuts:

Incidentally, the primary drive is waiting on a couple of things. First, I am going to fly cut the back of the mount brackets pictured previously. I don't suppose it is that critical, but it also won't hurt to have them a little more like a matching and even pair, and it's easy to do. Second, I'm still looking for something to make the bushings out of. Call me crazy, call me cheap, call me a cab even. I'll come up with something. Good to know the Logan ones are not 5/8"OD. Now at least I don't feel cheap!


----------



## Redlineman

How about another reference diagram?


----------



## Redlineman

I love these old machines;

I have no illusions. This humble lathe will remain far more capable than I, likely for the duration of our time together. I will never make enough chips to get very good simply because I do not have enough excuses to create them, if nothing else. That it is capable once again will be enough. Anything beyond that is a bonus.




Bits. The Brown Truck brought goodies from Robinsville, NJ. I decided to try some 75A Neoprene for the drive box mount bushings. 3/4" was the smallest available, so the sanding belt brought it down to the needed 5/8. I will reuse the "washer" portion of the old bushings, and these new pieces will be drilled to accept the .375 pins. Lying in the background are some nice new oil hole covers, and a draw latch that will take the place of the missing spring tab that the parts book says used to be there, many moons ago.




Saddle up. Oiled things up and floated the saddle on way for the first time. I would love to scrape all of this stuff in, as I assume it is not what you would call closely matched. However, at this stage I just want to keep creeping forward, so we will wait on that and a little lapping on the surface plate will have to suffice. Frankly I am more concerned with wear in the nuts & screws than anything. I'd like to enjoy the feel of a nice tight machine some time; something I have never experienced.


----------



## Redlineman

*Watershed Moment*

- 

1st Run! Yes, I drilled my primary mount bracket pin bushings this morning and got that mounted. 75A might be slightly softer than optimal, but it seems pretty close to what was there. Got things jiggered and plugged in the motor. Hummmmmmmmm....... OK. Hummmmmmm... Crap. Pull that motor, remove the capacitor cover, and the cap is fried. Who knew? Looked perfectly clean on the outside. How very fortunate that I have an identical 1/2HP motor sitting here from God knows what. Thanks Dad. Add a new cap to the need list.




First impression; this thing vibrates... a lot! All the stuff on the chip pan was a-buzz. Despite the rubber drive box isolaters, she shakes a bit. I had the peg leg sitting on a 4x4. Hmmm... Scrounging around the basement produced a nice piece of medium shag Berber left over from the bathroom. Four 4"x6" pieces stacked under a board brings a HUGE reduction in vibration. That's more like it. Improvise and overcome! Along those same lines and lacking the drive box cover yet, the paint brush stuck in the primary drive to achieve flat belt tension performed flawlessly as well.

The drive takes a ton of fiddling and jiggering to get things lined up and working properly. The old style countershaft holders are extremely sensitive to alignment and bolt tension. Getting it wrong means quite a bit of bushing drag. The motor bracket is awfully hard to get to and not that well designed as far as the bolt slots go. Guess I need to decide on a switch one of these days.

I cycled it through both primary pulley speeds and also those of the three cones. Back gears worked nice and smooth. So far, so good!

We be happy!


----------



## Mister Ed

Too bad on the vibration! Mine is the bench mount version, and the motor drive just barely touches the bench (and no isolator in between). I get no vibration.

Do you think it can be from the fabbed motor pulley? There are two on ePay at the current time. One is listed for a 10", but they want $69. The other is listed for a 9" but would be worth asking more details about, since the auction is only up to $26.


----------



## wa5cab

You can actually make rubber shoulder bushings if you have a drill press, vise, and the correct assortment of hole saws.  I had to make some a while back when I was restoring a PE-237 vibrator power supply for a Weasel radio installation.  

Buy probably 70 durometer (Shore A) neoprene flat bar of the correct thickness and just wider than the diameter of the largest hole saw you'll be using.  I got mine from McMaster.  Cut a wood block just narrower than the bar and thicker than the distance that the hole saw pilot drill sticks out past the hole saw teeth (or you can just remove the pilot drill but you still need the wood block - will help prevent break-out tearing on the bottom of the bushing).  Clamp the block and bar in the vise and position the vise under the spindle.  The vise must be securely attached to the drill press table.  I used one bolted to an X-Y table bolted to the drill press table.  Drill the center hole through with a standard (and sharp) twist drill.  Then use a hole saw whose ID is correct to leave the proper bushing diameter, adjust the depth stop and cut to a depth that leaves the desired flange thickness.  Widen the hole with successively larger hole saws until you get up to the desired flange diameter.  Mount this one with more length sticking out of the chuck than the previous ones so that you don't have to disturb the depth stop setting if you are making more than one bushing.  Cut through to the wood block and the first one is done.  Finish on the bushing side of the flange is nothing to write home about but once installed it's hidden anyway.  The colder the shop is, the better the neoprene will cut.

Robert D.



CluelessNewB said:


> When i was doing mine my rubber bushings #658 were toast.  I couldn't find a correct size bushing with a flange on it like the original.   I ended up using a non-flanged bushing, a rubber washer and replaced the straight pin with a new pin with a head on it to hold it in place.  The "new pin" is really just a partially threaded hex head machine screw with the threads cut off.  The rubber washer and bushing came from McMaster Carr but unfortunately can't find the old order with the part numbers.  Below is a crude paint drawing.  I guess I should really have drawn the rubber washer on the bottom rather than the middle to show the order of assembly correctly.


----------



## Redlineman

Next little project;

I should be looking ahead and getting all of my reassembly projects lined up so that everything that needs fixing is all done when it is time to put it on. Well... I haven't been doing that, so every step has its surprises and delays as a result. The next little project will be the drive box cover brackets. Those of you who remember the wreckage inside the headstock will not be surprised by this either. One of the brackets was obviously broken at some point, and someone made an attempt at making a new one.




Some broken items on this poor thing have been quite well repaired over the years, and some not so much. These cover hinges LA-384 are yet another example of the _not so much._ You can see that the replacement version was a bit of a loose interpretation of the original. Among all the obvious faults, you can clearly see that with the pivot pin holes lined up, the mounting bolt holes clearly do not. I would imagine that it is kind of hard to get the cover lined up nicely if the brackets are not the same. I initially thought about welding up some of the holes and re-drilling them, but that doesn't do anything for the odd narrow pivot head on the homey made one. I guess in the end I might as well just make a new one of my own instead of settling for someone else's inadequacies. Another chance to make something is not a bad thing to me.




This worked out well, I think. I'm trying not to deviate too far from what was original, but the latches these came with were wholly inadequate, evidenced by the fact that so few of them exist. I think this constitutes a reasonable upgrade!


----------



## TomKro

Good idea on that latch. 
 It should hold real snug, and looks good too.


----------



## Redlineman

Little Victories;

I don't really know what whoever made the last replacement hinge was thinking, or what their skill level was when they made their version of the original. I'm hoping that when I fit my version of it, I don't find it was an answer to some other silly problem that was created by the carnage visited upon this poor machine. Whatever, my version is done, ready for painting. I'm thinking it is just a bit more satisfying than the odd creation that preceded it. The oddity is on top, original in between, and mine at bottom. Hopefully... you could figure that on your own.







This second photo really shows how goofy the original replacement was. Now... if I hadn't twisted the shank off of the new rubber bumper I tried to install in the cover, I'd be able to mount the lid!!!  :angry:


----------



## Redlineman

Hey;

Not so much a bump, really. Well, perhaps, sort of. I have not done much of anything through the warm months. Just too flingin busy. An interesting post script on the drive box cover hinges. I had a helluva time getting that lid lined up. it is possible that the funky home made hinge WAS indeed an answer to this specific problem. Hard to say. I had to take the bracket I made back off and open up the mount holes a bit for more adjustment range. Many hours of fiddling were spent trying to get the door to fit and close evenly. In the end, all you can do is try to reach the best compromise that you can. I know that full well from years of doing such things in all manner of different venues. It is most helpful to have that experience, and most amusing to watch neophytes struggle with the illusion of perfection.

I've done a few little things since, but the biggie looming on the horizon is the apron. That is going to require some time & concentration, and even perhaps some different parts, I fear. I don't really have the time, but mostly I'm just not feeling it right now. The mojo will return, however.


----------



## LeakyCanoe

My, My, Hey, Hey - welcome back, and thanks for keeping the re-build alive !

I just wanted to chime in and thank you for the good documented work performed thus far and to offer my words of encouragement to keep it going as your batteries recharge and that mojo wanders back.  To help remind you just how far you've come I'll post a coupla pix of my Logan 200 that awaits my own mojo...I have other projects ahead of it but it will have it's day in the sun and I'm counting on your thread figuring to be a prominent part of that re-build. 

You can see that I start with a little better base unit than you did initially, but I still face my own issues to overcome.  You've got yours to a very nice state, however, despite the ugly duckling beginnings and that will serve as a good impetus for me to be positive when I decide the day has come.  I look forward to your final push and you deservedly spiking that ball in the end zone.


----------



## burnrider

Great work, thanks for posting with pictures & updates.


----------



## Redlineman

This would be a Start;


As in Fits &. I am working up to getting back to this project after a very busy summer. I have indeed gotten involved in something sort of off the topic, but for this lathe. There has been a lot of internet chatter elsewhere about larger dials for Logan crossfeeds lately. The ever polarizing _Tubalcain _has gotten a lot of attention for his efforts at same recently. Like him or not, the guy does have some chops, is pretty creative, and nothing if not utterly prolific! No, I have not been doing dials, but one of his Logans that he was using for the dial project had a nifty triple adjustable manual carriage stop that got no small amount of attention. I was inspired!






















This may not seem like a big deal to many looking on here, but this represents a fairly involved process for the doofus machinist. I was working from nothing but seeing the pictures on the internet, and having the lathe to take measurements from. Over the last few weeks I have toiled and come up with a very satisfactory piece, if I do say so. I'm quite pleased, and hope to actually make use of it some day in the not too distant future!


----------



## Mister Ed

I like it. A stop is on my list as well ... probably make it on my shaper, just because. I sure wish you would get the apron on that lathe! Then you can lead the charge on the bigger dial race.)


----------



## Redlineman

Yeh....

I know. Enthusiasm is building. This stop project really got my juices flowing. It was a lot of fun, the most involved machining process I have ever done, and I am quite pleased with the results. I leaned a ton and didn't even break any tools! Well... there was this one 90* .50" end mill that lost its point. Damn. Learned that this is not the way to mill a V. I can only speculate that chip/swarf evacuation is not good down at the point, and it overheated and snapped off. I estimated that this would be a better way than to use the fairly non-rigid angle vice and a regular square end mill. Guess I was wrong. The end mill did a very nice job of cleaning up the mess. Live & Learn.

My apron? First, a personal rant._ I ask questions on some of these forums, and no one ever seems to answer them. Yet, I see variously lost, misguided, clueless, inane banter for pages and pages about stuff that could be considered patently obvious. I ask about a skilled topic, and The Minds blather on over nothing instead. Well... this forum is indeed friendlier than SOME OF THOSE OTHERS. Less elitist attitude, perhaps, or smugness, or whatever. It's not necessarily overt "over there", but it exists, and Logans are looked on largely as a higher class Atlas, which are utterly SHUNNED. I've speculated that my obvious abilities to create in some areas make people think that I don't need any help. WRONG! I need help with things I don't know about, just like anyone else. I'm no more or less interested in blundering through and screwing up a million times than the next guy, so when I ask a question, it is sincere. I know a lot of things, and have talent, but I don't know everything. So... CAN I GET SOME ANSWERS????!!!!! _RANT Off.

So, the main issue with my apron is the crossfeed idler gears. They have one spot where they hang up pretty consistently. The bevel gear is the original, and the idler is a very nice used replacement. Those who have followed my build will not be surprised that my lathe HAD no idler gear at all, likely having been pummeled into oblivion by numerous crashes. You might also not be surprised that the rack gear of the pair is a bit worn. I hoped it would not be too bad to work, and it does mostly, but there is that one spot...

Perhaps I should just go buy a new rack gear, but that is not usually my first thought. My question had been, and continues to be, what is the process for working out these confrontations between teeth, and massaging them into a synergistic existence?


----------



## John Hasler

Sometimes none of us have the answers.

Also, often one gets more responses by proposing something very specific and asking for criticism.


----------



## Mister Ed

Redlineman said:


> My apron? First, a personal rant._ I ask questions on some of these forums, and no one ever seems to answer them. Yet, I see variously lost, misguided, clueless, inane banter for pages and pages about stuff that could be considered patently obvious. I ask about a skilled topic, and The Minds blather on over nothing instead. Well... this forum is indeed friendlier than SOME OF THOSE OTHERS. Less elitist attitude, perhaps, or smugness, or whatever. It's not necessarily overt "over there", but it exists, and Logans are looked on largely as a higher class Atlas, which are utterly SHUNNED. I've speculated that my obvious abilities to create in some areas make people think that I don't need any help. WRONG! I need help with things I don't know about, just like anyone else. I'm no more or less interested in blundering through and screwing up a million times than the next guy, so when I ask a question, it is sincere. I know a lot of things, and have talent, but I don't know everything. So... CAN I GET SOME ANSWERS????!!!!! _RANT Off.


First off, *sorry ... I did not mean to light a fuse*! I was really just joking around with the apron and dial comment. :sorry2:
I really have no clue as to your issue, other than there being some wear on one gear or the other or bent shaft on one of them. Heck, you've been inside your lathe much farther than most here ... a bunch of us are learning from you.:idea2:


----------



## JimDawson

John is correct, sometimes nobody has the answer.  It has nothing to do with your machine, many times nobody has had to solve the problem before.

I guess I would start by finding the offending gear teeth.  Then use a file to reshape the teeth to fit.  I'm guessing there is a small burr somewhere.  Also inspect the root of the teeth for metal chips stuck in there.  As far as the rack goes, brazing up and reshaping the bad teeth is a good method.


----------



## Mister Ed

Redlineman said:


> So, the main issue with my apron is the crossfeed idler gears. They have one spot where they hang up pretty consistently. The bevel gear is the original, and the idler is a very nice used replacement. Those who have followed my build will not be surprised that my lathe HAD no idler gear at all, likely having been pummeled into oblivion by numerous crashes. You might also not be surprised that the rack gear of the pair is a bit worn. I hoped it would not be too bad to work, and it does mostly, but there is that one spot...
> 
> Perhaps I should just go buy a new rack gear, but that is not usually my first thought. My question had been, and continues to be, what is the process for working out these confrontations between teeth, and massaging them into a synergistic existence?


I'm not finding where you were talking about this issue previously ... I probably missed it. Trying to eliminate components ... at what point of assembly/disassembly do you notice the binding? There are 4 gears (IIRC) and one of the bevel gears has a second gear to work the idler. Lets eliminate as much as we can (maybe you have). Is the issue between the idler and the bevel gear ... can you feel the issue when rotating the bevel gear with apron on the bench?


----------



## Redlineman

No no...

Settle down. There are dicks out there, but they are not here... well... at the moment... well... I don't think?  :lmao:

Anyone looking at my lathe pics knows there is not chip one to be found anywhere, so I know they have not been following my exploits. )  The problem is in nothing but the rack pinion gear LA-155 meshing with the idler shift gear LA-191. I imagine the trick is to die the teeth, roll them together a bit, and look for the points that obviously clash. I have marked the gears where they catch, and it is always the same spot. I know that guys that are craftsmen and fool with old lathes with irreplaceable parts do not just run them and let the teeth deal with it themselves. I was looking for strategies that I may not have thought of, but only got crickets. 

It was on another forum. I must come up with some real corkers, because a lot of my questions, even to The Gods, go unanswered.

Learning from me? Gads...


----------



## Redlineman

HIJACK......................

I've got Micrometer Madness. I've bought twelve of them in the past 3 days. Help.

Well... the problem with having multiple project sites is having to always figure where what you need is. Is it at garage lathe/mill, basement lathe/surface plate, or at the shop? Two are at home and only mildly annoying. The shop is 10 minutes drive and not immediately convenient. And... I want legacy stuff. Stuff with '_Murican _quality and HISTORY. Solution; have 3 sets of everything.

I love micrometers!   :ups:


----------



## drs23

Redlineman said:


> HIJACK......................
> 
> I've got Micrometer Madness. I've bought twelve of them in the past 3 days. Help.
> 
> Well... the problem with having multiple project sites is having to always figure where what you need is. Is it at garage lathe/mill, basement lathe/surface plate, or at the shop? Two are at home and only mildly annoying. The shop is 10 minutes drive and not immediately convenient. And... I want legacy stuff. Stuff with '_Murican _quality and HISTORY. Solution; have 3 sets of everything.
> 
> I love micrometers!   :ups:




:worthless:


----------



## Mister Ed

Alrighty then ... glad that was all a misunderstanding.

But something is not making sense (to me at least). Is the issue with the cross feed gearing, or the rack gearing? As far as I remember (and can interpret in the drawings) the rack pinion gear LA-155 does not mesh with LA-191 the shift gear for the cross feed. Two separate gear trains, two separate motions.

Whatever the case, all of these gears are different diam. So if you have the teeth of both gears marked where there is a 'catch', rotate until the next catch. At this point, I would suspect that one and only one of the marked teeth will be meshed with the other gear. The gear with the marked tooth in contact with the other gear would be the problem gear, and the marked tooth or the teeth to either side would be the problem.

From there, time to take a very close look for any wear, anomaly or whatever.

-------------
Had to edit after your post (I type slow):
Don't know squat about measuring gears ... but it sounds like you need 6 gear micrometers (or whatever they use). LMAO.


----------



## Redlineman

Ummm...

Wrong number. I actually had it wrong on my fancy color diagram. 

That should be Miter Gear LA-188 and Shift Gear LA-191. Here are the offending critters.


----------



## Redlineman

:ups:


----------



## Mister Ed

Redlineman said:


> Ummm...
> 
> Wrong number. I actually had it wrong on my fancy color diagram.
> 
> That should be Miter Gear LA-188 and Shift Gear LA-191. Here are the offending critters.


So, every time LA-191 comes around with the mark meshing to the miter gear ... you feel it bind?
If so, two things come to mind ... teeth on one side or the other of the mark (or on the mark) have some kind of bugger in them. Maybe get some Prussian blue (maybe dykem would work) and see where those couple teeth get polished up more so than the others.
The other thought, could the 191 gear be ever so slightly cocked on the stud/bushing? I have never had this apart but, if it was cocked so that the black line coincides with the high or low side ... I could see that potentially causing a bind.


----------



## Redlineman

Eureka!

In a desperate attempt to stay ahead of *TomKro *in our rebuild slow race to nowhere in particular, I WORKED ON MY LATHE TODAY! This is yet another example where I've dragged my feet on some perception of evil and doom lurking in the project just ahead, only to find it was a no brainer and wasn't worth a scintilla of fret.

What had been holding me up was gear binding. My lathe has been crashed into oblivion numerous times in its life, to the point that the idler shift gear LA-191 was completely missing, rendering the cross feed drive inoperable. The bearing bracket LA-196 was broken and had been welded; a fairly common malady for these lathes. Both the remaining miter gears LA-188 and 189 that drive the idler show the scars of battle, having some fairly significant tooth deformation in spots. The very nice used idler gear I purchased did not mesh well with 188. A bit of sleuthing showed a couple of things. First, as *Mister Ed* posited, there is indeed a bend in the pin that the idler shift gear rides on, but I don't think it is enough to cause a problem. Second, 188 did have a couple of well dented teeth that caught every time. Imagine a crash violent enough to break brackets, bend gear teeth way out in the apron, and bend the idler shift pin?! A little profiling with a file and 188/191 run nice and smooth. Certainly nothing to stew over for 6 months! So... very quickly, we are here;




Lots of juggling trying to get all this stuff together, as anyone who has ever done it knows. The biggest problem with aprons is you can't see what the hell you are doing back there. The last thing I snugged down was the LA-196 bearing bracket, and the next problem became apparent; the lead screw won't turn.

Loosen the bolt that holds the bracket to the apron and it turns fine. Tighten it again, and it binds. Pretty dang hard to see anything back there, but looking in all the way from past the change gear area shows the bearing bracket cocking upward when the bolt is snugged, jamming into the lead screw and bowing it upwards. I have no idea when the repair to LA-196 was done (although it appears to be done well), whether the lathe actually ever ran after that, or whether it has anything to do with this at all, but I now have to come up with a fix. :thinking:

Right off the top of my head, I can think of two ways. The easiest thing to do would be to open up the hole in the apron to allow for some adjustment, but I'm not sure that is the best way. The other would be to tear it all back apart again and attempt to set up the bracket on the mill such that I could change the angle of the mounting surface a bit. The difficulty in actually doing that accurately (how to measure how much?) is nudging me toward the inelegant fix, even though I dislike the thought quite a bit.

 One thing I will say is that it won't take me another 6 months to decide. Gotta stay ahead of Tom, after all.


----------



## TomKro

Redlineman:  I'm starting to feel the pressure.  

  I just pulled apart my spare carriage, and I'm really happy about the condition of the parts.  Not sure if my spare gears and pins are better off than yours, but I know I have a spare miter gear bracket, and it doesn't appear to have any cracks.  If you want to give it a try, just let me know and I can put it in the mail.   

TomKro


----------



## Redlineman

Thanks Tom;

Most generous of you. I would almost guarantee that if they are gears that you would use, they are better than mine. Mine are pretty flippin ugly. I would be glad to purchase anything that you have extra at fair market value.

Now, to the basement to yank that saddle... again.


----------



## Redlineman

OK...

I have suddenly realized that Tom and Ed are in cahoots, and trying to slow me down so they can win the slow race! 

:roflmao:

No... I should have known this was not going to fly. The broken and welded lead screw miter gear bracket LA-196;




When I have this assembly in place, the bolt threaded, but not tightened, the lead screw turns fine. When I tighten the mount bolt, the lead screw will not turn. When I watch the bracket as I tighten the bolt, it cocks straight up and bows the lead screw. I had reasoned that the weld looked good and strong, but seeing this development has me wondering exactly how one would set this up to weld it, and assure that it was square and true? It would take a fixture far more sophisticated than the part to achieve this, and that was certainly not done. As good as the repair looks, I have to assume it failed in the end. I'm left to wonder whether it was ever run in this state, and the condition of the miter gear may answer that.







The clear evidence of abuse and neglect. Surprisingly, the other miter gear LA-188 is only marginally tweaked, but still shows signs. Further surprise is that they run fairly well when paired together. That is in a static state, however, and may not prove to be the case when under load. 

More to come....


----------



## Mister Ed

Redlineman said:


> OK...
> 
> I have suddenly realized that Tom and Ed are in cahoots, and trying to slow me down so they can win the slow race!
> 
> :roflmao:



LOL!!! I think you might need to use a big arse triangle file on that gear.

I am out of commission for winter ... too honking cold out there. I did have my tailstock in the den the other day (don't tell better half). Somehow the spindle is binding in the housing and I'm not understanding why.


----------



## wa5cab

Redline,

It looks to me like there is enough meat to the bracket to bore and sleeve it.  And then bore the sleeve straight with the mounting surface.

Also, it looks from the one photo like the key is a separate part.  How is the key held in place? 

Robert D.


----------



## Redlineman

UPDATE;

*TomKro* is a most generous guy. Far beyond the pale. "A few" spare apron gears he offered to send me actually meant ALL of them. I'll be working to even up for that one for a long time!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, after juggling the apron for the last few days, I have learned how to take it on and off with my eyes closed. With the use of Tom's fine replacement bevel gears, I have what I consider a reasonable performance from the saddle in terms of the lead screw turning "freely." I ended up having to use both bevel gears. As pictured previously, my LA-189 was hammered. LA-188 had only a couple of teeth that showed any damage, but it was enough to cause a bind and so I replaced them both. I still had to do a lot of fiddling a juggling with the bevel bearing bracket to keep it from binding the lead screw. There is still a slight bind in the gears in one spot, but I think it will run itself in without incident.  

Interestingly, my lathe has benefited from being crashed more than running, in that it has not seen a lot of wear where you would expect it, like the bearing in LA-196. The bushing in my broken holder, and the gear shaft that runs in it, are far less worn than the replacements that are very nice in the teeth. You make the best choices you can with what you have and move on.

Now to the saddle. That is already proving to be equally fiddly...


----------



## TomKro

Glad to hear that the apron parts worked out.  

Since you're working on the saddle, don't forget to clean the paint out of those itty bitty wiper mount screw holes.  
Kind of tough to access with a tap once the saddle is back on the bed.  

I see chips in your future....


----------



## Redlineman

I feel a LONG way from chips.

So, this saddle thing.. Perplexed, and not at all happy with the results so far. I put the front gib on and don't quite get it. If I snug it down so that there is no play, it binds the carriage solid. If I loosen it so the carriage will slide at all, I can chunk it up and down freely. This is going to be very fiddly, and I'm not impressed so far. Any tips from experienced rebuilders appreciated.

I'm left wondering why rollers could not be used on such things? Something adjustable for tension, like the gib, but with Delrin wheels on it to reduce drag. It would seem a perfect solution to me.


----------



## TomKro

Not an expert, but...

I'm guessing you've oiled the heck out of everything.  
Any possibility the spacers (LA-348) are in backwards?  
The ones on my saddle have a notch to clear a ridge in the bottom of the saddle.


----------



## Redlineman

Yeh;

Indeed, I need to revisit that. I did put them in upside down at first. I'm not impressed with makeup and alignment of all that stuff. Kinda cheapy. It aint no Hardinge, that's for sure.

Oh... I better not bash my own brand, eh? I might get ****** at myself and start a fight.


----------



## Mister Ed

TomKro said:


> Any possibility the spacers (LA-348) are in backwards?
> The ones on my saddle have a notch to clear a ridge in the bottom of the saddle.


Those spacers gave me all kinds of fits ... until I got them orientated correctly.


----------



## Redlineman

NOOOOOOOOOOOB!

I've done all kinds of things in my life, but this is the first time I've put a lathe back together. In the last episode, I had only the front gib in place, and was adjusting it and sliding the saddle back and forth by hand. The apron was hanging on the lead screw nearby. At some point I punted; deciding to put the rear gib on and get it the best I could. It did not occur to me until I put the apron on and cranked it what was at play here.

I had not factored in the multiplied torque offered by the pinion drive, nor the force it applies in absolute linear fashion. WHOOOOOSH went the carriage back and forth. Dang... I can tighten the gibs even more!!! Striking a balance between free movement and hitting the unworn portions of the ways - well down tailstock way, and far up under the chuck - I have a carriage that spins easily, and sits snugly on the ways.

:victory:

Now for the crossfeed, and I know for a fact that it is... um... compromised.


----------



## MBfrontier

I agree that was kind and generous of TomKro. Good on you TomKro. I enjoy this forum because of the people with experience who are willing to offer thoughtful suggestions to help others. This is my first crack at rebuilding a lathe and I usually need all the help I can get.

Best of luck to both of you on your s-l-o-w race. However, if the slowest wins I may be in contention.

Mike B.


----------



## Redlineman

:thinking:

This little victory doesn't really amount to much. A big fuss over nothing as it turned out. I've had or created a few of those in this process, stalling my ambition to proceed. Yet, I am utterly psyched to have this turn out so well, trivial as it is in reality. Sometimes it seems like it is such a long fight, and it can get tiresome. 

Don't let those huge monsters you create in your own mind divert you from the goal. Don't be emotional. Be clinical, computerized, soulless, and binary. Plod methodically on as if it is a certainty, and setbacks do not exist. Deal with it emotionless. Setbacks are discoveries of need, and forward progress in and of themselves, not failures. Accomplish the little mission, rejoice upon completion, draw inspiration, then reset and move on.

To the Crossfeed!


----------



## MBfrontier

Hey, Redlineman.

Not to bring up a sore subject but I need to remove the apron on my lathe and was wondering what steps you take to do so. Any chance you could list the steps you take?

I feel your frustration on bringing a 1942 vintage lathe back to serviceable life. I have to confess I've been looking at new 12 X 36 lathes because I have projects I would like to be able to turn some parts for instead of working on the parts turner. The good news is if I get frustrated I can walk away and let it ferment until I can come back with a better attitude. Anyway, it doesn't look like you are too far away from being done. Hopefully, the majority of work is behind you.

Mike B.


----------



## Redlineman

Hey Mike;

Yeh... the big stuff is done. It's money time now. Getting all the fiddlies taken care of, and then the arduous task of aligning everything. I know my crossfeed screw is... um... kinda screwed up. Wish I had the coin to just buy a new one, or the ability to MAKE one. Lots of fiddling left to do for sure.

I've got to revisit the driveline vibration issue a bit. I've been ruminating over ways to further isolate the drive box from the lathe. Something clever that would not require any major rework or modification.

Saddle? Easy. I've done it enough times! 

- Remove the bolt up front that secures miter gear bracket LA-196 and let it flop down. 
- Remove the two Allen bolts on top. 
- Remove the leadscrew end bracket LA-167 and support the leadscrew until.... 
- Open the half nut, and wangle the apron down toward the tailstock and off the leadscrew. 

I was going to tell you that you also need to remove the locking collar LA-239 from the tailstock end of the leadscrew, but looking at the diagram for part numbers now shows me that my lathe was put together wrong. My LA-239 was inside LA-167, but the diagram shows it on the outside of the drive end bracket LA-166, opposite the other lock ring LA-169. Not sure it makes any difference. I'll have a look, but will probably put it back where Logan says.

Need any gears? I've got spares!


----------



## MBfrontier

Redlineman, thanks for that.

I'm not sure what I'll find inside the apron. What I know is that everything works right now but my concern is the half-nut. With the lathe turned off and the half nut engaged there is major play between the lead screw and carriage while lightly rocking the hand wheel back and forth. The carriage feeds fine while turning but I suspect it might be a major issue while threading. I don't see any wear on the lead screw threads that would cause the amount of play between the half nut and lead screw that I'm getting. That's why I suspect I may have to invest in a new or restored half nut. Admittedly, I'm not sure how much play is normal. I think the only way I'll know is to take the apron off to get a good look at the half nut and see how good or bad the wear is on the threads and mount.

Thanks, again.

Mike B.


----------



## Redlineman

Damn, damn, damn....

How prophetic was I in my last post? Screwed by screws indeed. I've spent some time recently working on the crossfeed, and my excitement at the generosity of my fellow traveler MikeB has been replaced by bummage. Of all the things you'd really like to have spot on, this is vying for the top spot. Top five at least. My cross screw has at least a 10* wank in the end where the handle sits. Some clod really zorked the thing at some point. Sort of typical for clods to do this to lathes. I found a decent looking screw on fleabay, but unfortunately, while it is far better than mine, it is not as good as I had hoped. It has far better threads on the end, and seems straight there, but has about 7-10 thou runout in the shaft under the screw bushing LA-254.

In adjusting these handles, you'd like all the bits to be perfectly square to the shaft and flush to each other to minimize lash. Unfortunately, if you have any runout in the shaft, you have to compensate by allowing a bigger gap between the locking nuts 0530 and the graduated collar LA-171 so that things can wobble in freedom without binding. Make it snug and its tight loose tight loose when you crank it. Any gap there translates directly into lash in the compound. Damn.

Just about fit to be tied, not having the chops to do it myself, not willing to compromise, and having any way out but to buy a new screw. REEEEEALLY gnaws at my innards. REEEEEALLY hate not being able to solve it on my own with what I have. Character flaw, perhaps.

This is a three-steps-back moment.


----------



## Mister Ed

Cross feed or compound?? Is the slop in the bushing itself?

I think each of these screws could stand a thrust bearing on each side. Which won't help your 10* bend, but may on the other.


----------



## Redlineman

Ya know, Ed;

That idea had occurred to me as well. It would be a good addition regardless. There is no real room for them, so something would have to get turned narrower to allow them to fit. I would guess that facing off LA-254 a touch might be the logical choice. Right now, I need to figure out a way to gauge the runout and give a try at straitening the screw. I need roller v-blocks for my surface plate.


----------



## Mister Ed

Redlineman said:


> Ya know, Ed;
> 
> That idea had occurred to me as well. It would be a good addition regardless. There is no real room for them, so something would have to get turned narrower to allow them to fit. I would guess that facing off LA-254 a touch might be the logical choice. Right now, I need to figure out a way to gauge the runout and give a try at straitening the screw. I need roller v-blocks for my surface plate.


Most likely for the compound that would work. I have not looked that close at the compound, or taken measurements. You could also recess 171 enough to fit the bearing (mostly) inside, then maybe face off the screw end of 254 enough to fit a bearing on the other end.

For the big dial set up I am working on (mothballed for winter) I have the outboard bearing all set (will mount between newly made pieces). The inboard bearing I plan on taking enough off the screw end of 172, to sandwich the bearing between it and the gear for the power cross feed. I have seen write-ups of the later being done.

With the bearings in place on each side, I should be able to tighten everything down enough to remove much of the "slop" related backlash and the assembly will probably turn much more smoothly.


----------



## TomKro

Had the very same problem on both carriage screws. 
My cross feed screw was so crooked it had to be knocked out of the bushing with a pin. 
I put two jam nuts on the screw, held them with vise jaws (screw parallel to and inside the jaws) and carefully pushed it back into place.  Sort of surprised how well it worked.   Just don't push very hard, they bend easy.  It helped to keep the lead screw within the jaws, to eye ball the bend, and prevent pushing too far. 
Good luck.


----------



## Redlineman

Yeh;

Done lots of straightening like this before, just not on something this critical or expensive. I did some eyeballing with the screw set in a couple of v-blocks on the surface plate. Picked the high side, stuck in the vice, and bapped it with a rawhide mallet. Eyeball, repeat, etc. I got it pretty good. Not perfect, but much better. I may keep refining it a bit more, but i'm sort of happy as it is.

I looked into the thrust bearing notion a bit. It would be slick to cut a relief in them and inset the bearing, but there are no needle thrust bearings small enough to sit within the diameter of the screw bushing 254 or collar 171. A metric 10mm shaft bearing is 24mm OD. That's the smallest I saw on McMaster Carr. There may be another type of bearing or source I don't know about. I still like the idea a lot.


----------



## TomKro

V-blocks and a surface plate...  Isn't that considered cheating?  
My screws didn't come out perfect either, but I also didn't want to break anything. 
It looks like McMaster-Carr has wave disk springs that could be used for the cross feed.  Maybe sandwich them with brass washers? 
MMC PN's 9714K14/K15 have an OD of 0.662 inch, so that should fit within the Model 200 cross feed graduated collar.  I think my carriage parts came from a Model 210 (not sure), and my dial is about a 1/4 inch bigger,  so if you can find a collar and a bushing from one of those, maybe you have a better chance of finding a small thrust bearing that will work.  
I think the bigger dial helps, but still tough for me to see.


----------



## Mister Ed

Not needle bearings, but should still work fine on the coumpound MMC P/N 6655K15 3/8 shaft & 13/16 diam. It is nearly .25 thick though, because it us a ball thrust bearing.


----------



## Redlineman

Like a lot of these machines, my crossfeed screw was not the best. It was sort of a good match for a lot of the other things that had been trashed on this poor old thing. The set-screw-to-key-the-handle idea is not really such a good one, it doesn't seem to me. If people do not keep the opposing nuts tight, the things that really lock the handle, the screw takes the load and buggers up the keyway and threads. Mine was gouged all the way around! So too are these the favorite target for any impact that might happen along, and so they are often bent and/or broken.

The threads on the end of mine were quite badly buggered due to the loose nuts crowd. Worse than that was that it was bent pretty severely within the length of the end threads. A significant part of the lash adjustment is taken here, and so a bent screw means extra room needed to keep it from binding as it wobbles. I don't begrudge Logan in getting $200 for a new one, but I just couldn't see it in my budget. I tracked and bought a used screw off ebay that looked quite good. Unfortunately, I traded one set of problems for another. It's a crap shoot, as they are all the same age.

When I began evaluating it, I quickly noted that it was obviously bent. There was noticeable wear from the bronze bushing in LA-254 on the plain portion of the shaft. The end threads were fair; better than mine. The big improvement was that it was not bent withing the threaded area, which is much harder to straighten. It is a tedious affair to build and tear down the feed over and over, trying to get the screw straight. The first attempt proved very beneficial, and I got it to the point that I could not accurately discern the location of the wobble that remained. Still, wobble it did, and so I employed the next strategy.

The first attempt was simply made by eye, and by carefully tapping with a hammer with the screw in the bench vise. For round two, since I could no longer tell exactly where to hit it, I hit it EVERYWHERE. In such instances, I take a soft mallet, in this case rawhide, lay the object on a hard flat surface, and work the entire length and circumference. The soft mallet will not pein of otherwise distort the metal, but any portions that are not touching the hard surface will be bent downward. This tends to drive out any discrepancies that still remain. I was able to get it so that the lash left in the end assemblies is very minimal, to the point of diminishing return, I think. Finish time.

About 45 minutes of detailed filing and strip sanding to get all the nicks and gouges out, and then it was over to the buffing wheel. I'm quite pleased with the results. At some point, it might be nice to replace the bronze busing in La-254, but radial play is far less important than axial in a screw like this. Pending further discovery when it actually makes chips, I'm happy so far.


----------



## MBfrontier

Hey, Redlineman.

Glad to hear you were able to beat your cross slide screw into submission. I looked into replacing my cross slide screw from Logan but can't get past the price. If mine was unserviceable that might be another story. Sometimes, purchasing used parts are a pleasant surprise but other times create a new series of problems.

My cross slide screw has a little wobble to it as well. I don't think it has enough to take it back out and try to correct it. However, the threaded and keyway portion under the adjustable dial is chewed up from the hardened set screw and the locater pin in the hand crank has enlarged the cut keyway. I replaced the steel set screws in the adjustable dials with brass thumb screws to try to eliminate any more damage to the key slot and threads. I'll be looking for a small key to fill the groove so the brass thumb screw has something to tighten up on instead of jamming into the edge of the threads at the keyway. Another one of those small parts things.

Nice job on polishing your hand crank, dial, and bushing on your cross slide.

I'm sure your lathe will be running soon.

Mike B.


----------



## Redlineman

Hey;

The screw for the dial does not ride on the threads, eh? Is it not back on the smooth shaft? I like your brass screw though, and was contemplating something similar. I wouldn't get too concerned about damage, as long as you sanely snug it by finger tip. Doesn't require much tension. The large dial idea still appeals to me. I can't see _shirt _anymore, even with cheaters on! Who here was supposed to be figuring that out for us?....

Frankly, I think the set screw on the handle is utterly redundant. The jam nuts are plenty to keep the handle in position, and if the set screw is just for locating... who cares where the handle is? What do I know, but as long as it stay put and turns the screw, I can't see how its radial position matters. Mine had a regular screw in it, and it was buggered quite nicely. I might just leave that long gawky screw I had in there out!


----------



## wa5cab

I would have to see a photograph of the crank and feed screw that ya'll have been discussing.  But I just counted, and I have a grand total of 12 places here (with three more inbound) that could be generically described as crank or hand wheel driven feed screws.  None have any set screw in the crank or hand wheel, and all have a woodruff key in the portion of the screw covered by the crank hub.  With a nut on both sides of the hub for end float adjustment.  Some of the dials originally had Allen set screws but all have been replaced by thumb screws.

Could it be that some PO replaced the crank with one that wasn't broached for key?  And instead of fixing it properly, just put a set screw in it?  Or is my mental picture of what you have been talking about totally out in left field?


----------



## MBfrontier

Redlineman, you're right. There is no thread where the dial set screw is but it does interfere with the keyway. Since I just assembled mine yesterday, I wasn't able to look at mine when I read your post. I think the point is it is a bad design even for 1942. After all, we did have planes flying then didn't we? I agree with your comment about the set screw in the crank but my hand crank has a locator pin instead of a set screw.

This picture should help people understand this conversation a little better, eh?



Mike B.


----------



## wa5cab

Good Lord.  Are they all like that?  Are there two nuts, one on either side of the crank?


----------



## Redlineman

Hey;

The early 200s had a set screw to locate the handle in the keyway. It is called a pin in the diagram (LA-271 Ball Crank with Pin 273). Not sure why, but that's what they did. I do not know for sure, and this is speculation on my part, but it may have been a decision made to keep costs low for the production agreement they had with Montgomery Wards. I'm not sure what the company actually knew about metal machines, as it is my understanding they made mining equipment. My further speculation is that this was a subcontract arrangement that turned into a business. When the 200s first came out, they had many improvements over the Wards versions, but also still used a lot of the same bits. When they went into what I refer to as "serial production", somewhere after 1942, they changed to a handwheel with a key instead. I prefer the look of the ball handle, but would certainly rather have the key. It wouldn't be that hard to broach a keyway into an early handle, if one were so inclined.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ha... you guys were typing while I was distracted. Interesting that yours is actually a pin, Mike, like it says in the diagram. I would guess a lot of them got tapped and set screwed after the first time they came apart. Both of mine had screws, and I never knew any different. Whichever, pin or screw, it is a dumb idea, probably again due to reasons I speculated on. They fixed it with a wheel and key when they went bigtime in '43. The "Tombstone Era", for the nameplate shape, as I refer to it.


----------



## Redlineman

Funny, Mike;

Your threads and keyway are FAR better than either of mine, but the spot where your dial set screw sits is really buggered. Neither of mine have any marks there at all. I'm left wondering what kind of load was induced into the dial, and why, that would cause it to spin its set screw that badly? Is this the result of being bent, and not adjusted accordingly?


----------



## TomKro

You guys are doing great with those nice shiny handles.
Here's what I started with:


I could be wrong, but I'm guessing the socket head screw was a home job retrofit. 
It actually worked fine in that condition.  Go figure. 
Really nice job polishing the handle.


----------



## wa5cab

OK.  I had heard somewhere that Logan got into the machine tool business sorta sideways.  Kinda like Helena Rubenstein and the last contract for R-390/URR receivers.

The crank is salvagable with a piece of all-thread, some stud lock and a broach.  But I would have to put that screw out to pasture.  The engineer who designed that should have been sent to Guadalcanal.  Reminds me of a few I've had working for me.


----------



## Redlineman

There you go again...

Trashing on Logans. Yeh... pretty dumb design. Probably the result of circumstance and expedience. Not a machine tool company. Trying to get a subcontract product to market to compete with the mighty Sears Roebuck. Trying to get ANY machine thrown together as fast as possible to satisfy the voracious appetite of the war effort. That is speculative, but at least possible, if not probable. Did they have bean counters back then? This idea would strongly point to their existence. This practice may have continued all the way until 1946, according to dates on the diagrams I have. I don't even think that pin is necessary, as long as the nuts remain tight, but the convention was to key them, and for obvious reason. No real good reason not too that I can think of, so it remains a mystery. Call it "personality." Overall they did pretty darn well and made a great little machine.

Tom; that is the ugliest unit I have ever seen. I will no longer complain about the sorry state of mine. They are pristine by comparison. I actually debated long and hard about trying to graft on a new threaded end onto my original. Now that I have replaced it with a "better" one, I may actually give that idea another look, just for grins.


----------



## MBfrontier

My cross slide screw looks much better now after seeing TomKro's.


----------



## LeakyCanoe

Ground control to Major Tom   ???    Wassup in Logan re-build land ?

I'm needing some closure on this one.  Run it over the line and spike the ball my friend.


----------

