# My Pair of South Bends - starting out now.



## graham-xrf (Oct 13, 2019)

I have two South Bends, a 9C, and a 9A. I have only just started doing anything with them now. Who knew I would ever be getting into this? I take the plunge because after what I have read in this forum, I know there is enough help here. They are an SB-9A, purchased for the US equivalent of £525, and also the green SB-9C with under-drive on a blue bench with spare 4-jaw chucks, and drawers full of various tooling, purchased for $147 (not kidding)! The 9C has been stored for a couple of years, covered in oil, and under covers. The 9A is the recent purchase, because I wanted the quick-change gearbox and power cross-feed, and had been looking out for one to come up. I had thought that one lathe might, at worst, end up as a parts donor for the other. As things are turning out, it looks like neither is so bad as to deserve ending up as a parted out scrap.

I am not sure I would go mad attempting a full restoration job on both. At the least, they will get cleaned up, damage fixed, new wicks, etc. and made to run again. Given the crazy price I shelled out for one of them, it would not be so bad if, in the end, I keep one and sell the other.

In this forum, there are great pictures of restored machines, all clearly loved. Not yet for me! At least for now, I expect to be posting some not-so-pretty "before" pictures of how things are right now. There is yukky dirt, corrosion, and neglect. I will rely on forum advice. If something can be saved, then OK. If it is junk, and a mistake, then also OK - it gets junked!

Start with a couple of pictures of the lathes. The 9A does have a chuck, but I had already taken it off. This iron is heavy! I could just about lift the only heavy end slightly off the floor, so it had to be "divide and conquer". Once I had got it down to the lathe bed + feet sans gearbox, headstock, etc. I could lift it up onto  bench.  Already in my mind is a future need I had not anticipated. If I am going to be hauling heavy iron stuff around, I have to think about some crane gadget to help me do it!



The 9C is still all oiled up and under covers.

The 9A was still on the garage floor.


9A is covered in dirt and chips, and my heart sank a bit when I could see the dinged up ways by the chuck, and then  I got a look up the quill. Someone had drilled out part of the #MT2 taper, I guess as part of an effort to extract a stuck taper - or something. That stuff, with pictures, is in my previous thread.

*9A The first wipe-down and inspection*
OK - warts and all, here it is. The dirt turned out to be an oil-soaked yuk of dust and rust - but yay! The key word was OIL!
A bit embarrassed I already be feeling! This is from under the headstock




It starts to look better. I cannot catch a fingernail on any wear ridge. There is a slight shine on the top and bottom edge extremes of the inverted V-ways, but they seem "flat" just to feel, or look at.




I know I am not the tidiest dude, but I am realizing I had better become a whole lot better about it. I will not be able to make this work unless the surroundings are cleaner and everything is more organized. Already I am pushed to clear out most of the garage accumulations, not least because the entire garage area has to undergo some building operations and be finished properly. There comes a point where temporarily, all these efforts be carefully labelled and put away, so that all the new environment can happen. I've been saving for it for years, and lathe fun takes second place!

Even though the first cleanup was only a cursory effort, using some WD40, because it is mostly kerosene with some floor polish, and it cuts through the grime, I could not resist a first (fast) shot at discovering the wear and general condition. It leads to the first question.




*Whey are the scrapings on the front V-way adjacent the headstock worn away?*
It is not surface that ever sees the saddle ride over it. Compared to the other ways at that end of the lathe, it stands out.

You can see that in the region right under the chuck, there are the usual dings. There is some incipient rust - a little  "browning". Not serious deep rust, just evidence the lathe had been stored awhile with the saddle not moved. By now I am noting the (lack of) serious wear. It looks like it had bit of a hard and abusive life over a relatively short period, and then was stood unused for years.

*We try a first "measurement".*
A "reverse" measurement where we find the sag of the saddle relative to a supposedly "unworn" surface.
First, very gently I ran a flat fine India stone over the surfaces. Two long strokes, and I checked for dings and burrs sticking up by using a piece of ex-mirror thick glass pressed against the ways, and I look through it as it displaces oil.

I consider using the tops of the V-ways. I dare say they would do, but they look kind of "rounded" in places. I choose the scraped flat between the ways. I think that bit might be used by the tailstock, but the tailstock does not normally visit this far left of the middle.

I worry that the saddle might be riding on the little brass retainers around the V-shaped way-wiper felts. There seemed to no clearance, so I removed them. Then I just went ahead with it. Despite that my Dad once told me the only way to stay confident of a measurement was to "do it only once", all this is going to be done again later - and better!




So what happened? I start with the indicator zeroed on the flat between the V-ways. The indicator can see 0.0005"
I can guess it between to about 0.0002" All stays zero until we get away from the surfaces under the headstock.

The saddle then "drops" about 0.0008 at first, and makes it to about  -0.0012" before it eventually climbs back to zero..
It stays more or less at the "low"  point until we get the saddle moved back to where the tailstock normally lives, which is where the needle returned to zero. The variation stays within about 4 tenths (meaning +/- 0.0002),  around the level about 0.001" low, all the way over the "used and worn" region.

This seems to me to be not very much, and maybe I am fooling myself by using the surface I did. They all might be going down and up together(?) The whole thing will be done again until I am really sure of everything. I left out a whole scene involving the 4 arc-seconds level (0.02mm/metre). That too must be done better!

In passing , I briefly tried out the backlash in the cross-slide and compound. There is a tiny bit, but not a whole several degrees worth! Reading on the graduations, perhaps a couple of divisions before the slide moves the "other" way.

Except for the abused quill, for which we can "borrow" one from the 9C, I am thinking the 9A, under all the grime, and forgiving the dings, is maybe not so bad. Clearly it went through a period where it was somewhat unloved, and had a really abusive experience involving the quill, but the actual working life seems to have been relatively short. A clean-up, a new wicks kit, and any damage fixed, and it gets put together right, may yield an OK machine. A real working thing from the 1940's that hopefully works just fine.

Serial Number is 130147 with a "J.A.N." inscribed to the right.
I should not get ahead of myself here. We have yet to go through the gearbox, and for all I know, the motor might just hum and make sparks and smoke! I am not even thinking clearly yet about the day I might post much nicer pictures of the working machine

There is already lots of information on this site on how to do exactly what I am trying. Even so, feel free to comment and make suggestions. I am pleased to take any help I can get.


----------



## craptain (Oct 13, 2019)

That's a whole lot of information about your new machines. And a whole lot more for you to discover. I am not going to offer suggestions as you seem to have a basic grasp of what to do, and honestly, I don't think I am qualified to make any suggestions yet. I have the same lathe. A later model with counter shaft, but still basically the same. I will however comment on the price. You definitely suck, getting that kind of deal. 
Good Luck, and I will follow along. 

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## woodtickgreg (Oct 13, 2019)

I too will enjoy following along on this one. A true indication of bed wear is done with a known straight shaft, t.g.p. is a good item to use to get you closer measurements. The shaft needs to go between centers and the indicator mounted to the saddle and then indicate all along the shaft to find the highs and lows. I think you will probably find greater variances with this method. I am also told that the rollers inside a dead computer printer are very accurate to use for the task as well. I have never tried the printer roller but I may.


----------



## graham-xrf (Oct 13, 2019)

craptain said:


> I have the same lathe. A later model with counter shaft, but still basically the same. I will however comment on the price. You definitely suck, getting that kind of deal.
> Good Luck, and I will follow along.


----------



## graham-xrf (Oct 13, 2019)

craptain: OK - nice to have you along.
I did not yet show anything of the motor(s) and countershaft assemblies. Both lathes do have them. The one for the 9C is in a bracket designed for it that hangs under the bench. The drive for the 9A goes in the usual place topside behind the headstock. I have a whole bunch of questions about shafts and belt types, but I had to start somewhere, and I figured we would cross that bridge when we get to it.

Wow,  but that motor with all it's pulleys and all was heavy! It's a big thing. Maybe when I get a closer look, I might find it was an "upgrade". There has been some discussion about motor powers, but I have to look up the threads again. I think some were 1/4 HP. Some were 1/2 HP. The 10K or "Light 10" was like the 9" series, except for the bigger spindle and clearance to the ways. Most other parts were the same. The Heavy 10 very likely needed a bigger motor.
I will get into all that eventually, as I start to deploy those parts.

As to the 9C price. Sure - it was a great buy, but I cannot feel too smug about it. It came from the perils of browsing the eBay site with a pal after a nice dinner + 2.5 drinks! DO NOT DO THIS! The auction was in it's last hours, and still at £99 UKP. We expected there would be rush near the end, but we thought to try a bid.  I put in a max and I was immediately outbid. At least the winner would not be paying peanuts. I left it there, not a dime spent!
The surprise came next morning in an email from eBay. Something had gone wrong, the winner bid cancelled, and the bids unwound back to mine. I was given the chance to refuse, but it was a no-brainer! I paid up immediately, and only afterward thought to check the distance to the pickup. 94 miles away it was, + my wife was disapproving over the whole episode! You guys in the USA may not think that is very much, but here, tackling the South M25 traffic to get across the Thames at Dartford, and drive into Essex is significant! I needed my pal, and his white van. We have to add the journey cost and lunches to the price of the lathe.

The sellers turned out to be relatives of the lathe owner, who had died, and they were disposing of his stuff.


----------



## graham-xrf (Oct 13, 2019)

woodtickgreg said:


> I too will enjoy following along on this one. A true indication of bed wear is done with a known straight shaft, t.g.p. is a good item to use to get you closer measurements. The shaft needs to go between centers and the indicator mounted to the saddle and then indicate all along the shaft to find the highs and lows. I think you will probably find greater variances with this method. I am also told that the rollers inside a dead computer printer are very accurate to use for the task as well. I have never tried the printer roller but I may.


woodtickgreg: OK - thanks for the suggestion. Its a guess for me, but decoding "t.g.p"??  OK - that has to be "turned, ground, polished". A test bar!

Two kinds of these I recently discovered. One is the kind with a #MTx taper to suit the spindle without the chuck on it, and you use an indicator fixed to the lathe, and then lathe saddle, and indicate to the rotating precision test bar.

The other kind is a bar you can turn, maybe 300mm long, or as long as you like, with a centre at the tailstock end, and most of the middle region cut away, like a dumbbell. You turn a fine cut off the end parts and measure each with a micrometer to reveal any tailstock misalignment or bed twists. This would not be useful to measure wear in the ways.

To show up bed wear, I guess you fix the indicator base to the cross slide, and keep indicating to the underside of the precision bar, this for several positions of the saddle along the bed. I am guessing the relationship between the length of the t.g.p. bar and the cost is probably somewhat non-linear!

Er.. I know the link will evaporate in the future - but for now..








						173888152695: Search Result | eBay
					

Buy and sell electronics, cars, fashion apparel, collectibles, sporting goods, digital cameras, baby items, coupons, and everything else on eBay, the world's online marketplace



					www.ebay.com
				




OK then - maybe not too bad. How long need it be to measure bed wear?

So now you got me thinking about the number of good test bars I have dumped in taking defunct printers to the local garbage tip, here called "household recycling & waste management centre"!

Just to throw in another picture amid all this text, I did get the Ilion "Guide to Renovating the South Bend Lathe 9" Model A, B & C Plus Model 10k". The clean copy is covered with clear adhesive plastic, and kept upstairs. I make printer scan copies of the pages needed to use down in the garage.  The pictures are all taken with a Samsung smartphone, which can give the leadscrew a bit of a "curved" look.




This last picture recording the apron, supported on wood blocks, now without screws, and the square head bolt coming off. Note the cross slide dial. Yank it hard, push it back. The backlash is tiny. I understand it is a bad thing to have zero backlash, because you cannot tell where the beginning of movement is, to then set the next cut depth.




That's all for the present. I will post more when I have taken it apart more.


----------



## SLK001 (Oct 13, 2019)

That is a very unusual 9C you have there.  I have NEVER seen an under mounted drive for one.  I wonder if it was a former user mod somewhere down the line, though it does look factory.


----------



## graham-xrf (Oct 14, 2019)

SLK001 said:


> That is a very unusual 9C you have there.  I have NEVER seen an under mounted drive for one.  I wonder if it was a former user mod somewhere down the line, though it does look factory.


SLK001: Hi there.. and you have started me down a fill scale identification issue. I have been calling it a "9C" because everything about it looks like a 9C e.g. the apron, etc. All 9" SB lathes A, B, C could be had with any of the 4 drive choices offered.
There was..
a) A six-speed horizontal drive.
b) A twelve-speed horizontal drive
c) A V-belt pulley version for eight or 16 speeds.
d) Underneath motor drive, which could do the same choices as the horizontal drive.

The thing is, there were earlier 9" lathes that had many features that looked just like the 9A, 9B, 9C 10k series, and there was an underneath drive bracket specifically designed to be bolted  under a bench.

The UK website..
http://www.lathes.co.uk/southbend9-inch/    and http://www.lathes.co.uk/southbend/

.. has probably the most complete explanations. I had to use "Ctrl +" a couple of times to bring up the tiny font, and it has a  navigation system at the top of every page, to get used to.

There are pictures down the lower part of the first link showing exactly the arrangement I have, but it is shown on a type called "workshop", and it has a differently shaped gear guard than on mine. The same underneath drive, it seems, could be used to power a variety of models up on the bench.

South Bend also messed with the model names a lot!
What made a "Toolroom" model different from regular versions was providing a handwheel draw-in collet chuck (without any collets), a collet rack, a taper attachment, a thread dial indicator, a thread cutting stop, a large faceplate, and a "micrometer carriage stop". In the end, they quietly dropped all the names except the "Precision" model, because it sounded better. That did not mean they suddenly started selling it with all options as standard (Japanese-style). I think it meant all options were extra. Come to that, so was even the motor!

I think my green thing looks and quacks like a 9C. The shapes of the feet under the bed can give away the differences between models 405 and model 15 compared to the 9A or 9C.

Easy to get confused. This picture is of a *model 405*, albeit horizontal drive. I can see the 4 screws on my "green thing" where the switch mounted, but there are differences. Spot the tailstock with the see-through window. My tailstock has a solid web. For now, I stick with "9C", but you got me thinking!

*Model 405 restored*


----------



## craptain (Oct 14, 2019)

SLK001 said:


> That is a very unusual 9C you have there. I have NEVER seen an under mounted drive for one. I wonder if it was a former user mod somewhere down the line, though it does look factory.


I have never seen one either. The cabinet looks home built, but very well made. The headstock has to be factory. Perhaps it's a frankenlathe. Assembled from a 9a and 9c parts.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## craptain (Oct 14, 2019)

Graham, you slipped in while I was typing. 
I just sold a 405,with horizontal drive. It was factory original, as verified by the copy of the build card from Grizzly. My later 9a is original except for the motor. You can order a copy of the build card from Grizzly for $25. Not worth it for most people but I wanted to know. 

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## SLK001 (Oct 14, 2019)

graham-xrf said:


> I think my green thing looks and quacks like a 9C. The shapes of the feet under the bed can give away the differences between models 405 and model 15 compared to the 9A or 9C.



There is no doubt that your lathe is a SB 9C.  I looked in the 1963 catalog and you could indeed get a 9C with an under mount drive, but that included a factory cabinet.


----------



## graham-xrf (Oct 14, 2019)

SLK001 said:


> There is no doubt that your lathe is a SB 9C.  I looked in the 1963 catalog and you could indeed get a 9C with an under mount drive, but that included a factory cabinet.


I agree, everything about it is like a 9C. The saddle from the 9A fits right on it. Everything up there looks exactly the same, although, in the detail, the slot in the quill of the 9A is fractionally wider. Not too significant because SB changed their build over the years. The labels are genuine.

BUT .. There is still some mystery!
There is NO serial number on the alleged 9C - or at least, there is nothing in the spot where one expects it to be. It's not that a lathe would be produced like switchblade knives for criminals. A serial number should be somewhere! Maybe there was some particular year when South Bend started using the place on the bed right next to the two screws that hold the leadscrew bearing on. There is not the minutest trace of stamped number in the expected place.

*9C - Sans Serial Number?*



I studied that spot really carefully. Gone indeed! No serial number was ever there. If there is one, it hides somewhere else on the machine.

*South Bend Serial Number Calculation?*
A curiosity I found on that UK lathes information site. You do need a scientific calculator. My Reverse Polish calculator on my PC does this just fine.

1. Find your serial number, in my case 130147 for the 9A
2. Raise the number to the power *0.0059*.  So mine is (130147 ^ 0.0059) = 1.07195156226
3. Then multiply the answer by *1812*, (as in the Tchaikovsky tune used for US Independence Day since 1974 - but without the cannons)!

So for me 1.07195156226 x 1812 = *1942.37623082* for which we take "*1942*".
Wow! Who knew that could work? What geek figured it out? It seems South Bend had a simple sequential numbering system for the first 186,500 lathes up to 1947. After that, they used serial groups for different lathe types. The number of types decreased, and the big survivor was the 10K which had the highest serial numbers in their range.

OK - so the calculation has enough decimal places to place an oilcan in LA, as viewed from NY, but is only claimed to get the date of manufacture within a year or so manufacture.

I know in trying to identify my 9A lathe, I got distracted a bit. For any folk also trying for similar, here is what I found..
*South Bend Lathe Serial Numbers*



*Then from 1947..*




While here, I see the screw heads reveal that somebody had the 9C leadscrew off at some stage - not too unusual. I do that too! Except, if I had put any screws back, I would be able to tell it was me. The slots would not be mangled, and maybe even the screws upgraded to hex capscrews.

More Mystery!
I can expect that the underneath drive would have a different foot support, but I have compared the casting of the lathe bed, and the mounting foot at the tailstock end for both lathes. Here we see a difference.

*Alleged 9C tail end.*



*Now compare to the known 9A tail end*



The "green" foot is shorter, and is part of the bed as a single casting. The 9A foot is a separate casting, bolted to the main bed with a clamp plate.

*Other things.*
While I had the covers off to get the pictures of "alleged 9C", I can see a wear ridge in the ways, and the backlash on the cross slide dial is well more than 90°. It is probably an older lathe, so that is perhaps to be expected. It was clearly better treated at times, new green paint job, new bronze quill nut repair, etc. The gears look all clean and lovely. Still, it had worked long in it's life!

My apologies if this turned into a bit of a ramble. For the moment, it takes me wherever it will, until I start on some kind of plan.


----------



## craptain (Oct 14, 2019)

And the mystery deepens! 
The page you showed comes from ws wells database. But without a serial number not much help. Also check Vintage Machinery website for more information and pictures. 

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## SLK001 (Oct 14, 2019)

I once heard that South Bend didn't use serial numbers for lathes that they used in their production.  These lathes were released into the wild when the assets from the closed factories were auctioned off.

AFAIK, the position on the bed near the right-front end was _always _the place for serial numbers, even from the beginning.


----------



## graham-xrf (Oct 14, 2019)

craptain said:


> And the mystery deepens!
> The page you showed comes from ws wells database. But without a serial number not much help. Also check Vintage Machinery website for more information and pictures.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


Oh! Sorry about that. The mind skips from 9C to 9A very easily. I am, after all, looking at two of them.


----------



## graham-xrf (Oct 19, 2019)

OK - maybe a poorly chosen subject title. There comes a point where one has passed the "starting out" stage, and has the machine apart. Do I start a new thread? I guess so. I am at the "Oh hell! What have I done?" stage. You know - the one where the machine has been taken apart, and the realization that some of the surroundings should have been take care of first! There begins the need to purchase "necessary machine stuff", like a Chinese M2 cutter + reamer set to clean up the quills, and spindle oil and way oil, and a drive belt, and a set of felt wicks, and so on. I have my home "skunkworks" fund already started to manage part of this. I will be trying to find ways and means of keeping the costs down.

In starting out on some measurements to get some real knowledge of the condition of the 9A lathe, I searched hard to find out what the measurements are supposed to be. I found a single page in a thread on "Practical Machinist". I have attached the picture. It is useful for only 2 dimensions, and not-so-useful as a template to get up the sort of sketch I need. The picture was "rotated a bit"or "artistic", took liberties in the illustration such that the ways are not at the same level, nor the planed gaps between the ways, and I am pretty sure that on the real thing, they are!

I made my own sketch, with places to fill in the dimensions as either I measure them, or folks contribute if they happen to know.
So far, I have this..


On the measurements I took for the flat 10 between the ways , and then for the gaps 8, and 17, I find that flat 10 corresponds to 21/32", and gaps 8 and17 seem to be 9/16".
I measured 5.93" inches for the total width using a caliper, which corresponds OK to an attempt at 5+15/16".

I plan to discover the condition - a set of measurements. After the style of someone who did this elsewhere for a different lathe, we can decide which surface can be used as unworn reference, and how to work our way to the rest. I would hope that surfaces 8, and 17 are unmolested, and can be used as an original reference. The rack gear surface 2 can measured up to the top of the V-ways 5 with a micrometer, to try and prove they are parallel. In theory, the tops of the ways are unworn, and therefore good to place a level across. The actual condition, to look at them, is not so great as to leave me feeling good about such logic.

If 2 proves parallel to 5, and 20 proves parallel to 23, then I may start to trust the tops of the ways a bit more.

Then I will decide what to do with it. If the wear is not much, then at the very least, it gets a cleanup, a paint job, new wicks, and maybe some minor stuff like a serpentine belt, and a on-off switch. The MT3 in the spindle needs a cleanup. I expect that is something done with extreme care!

I think I have reached the point where I should continue with a new subject thread. To quote the old bloke from a previous century (millennium even), "It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning"!


----------



## SLK001 (Oct 20, 2019)

My first question is, "Why"?  What will you do with that information?  What CAN you do with it?  As for wear, the carriage and the tailstock wear IN to the vees (which is why you will get a ridge that your fingernail can detect).  The outside of this wear is still a reference.  Also, your flats numbered 5, 14 and 20 are in the same plane and ARE a reference point (especially for leveling the lathe).  Just make sure that any dings in them are carefully stoned out.

One of your earlier posts indicated that you could not catch your fingernail on the wear on the front vee?  Did you reassess this?  As for wear, it does not translate 1 to 1 on anything that you turn, so 0.005" of wear doesn't cause 0.005" of "change" as you try to turn a bar.


----------



## graham-xrf (Oct 20, 2019)

SLK001 said:


> My first question is, "Why"?  What will you do with that information?  What CAN you do with it?  As for wear, the carriage and the tailstock wear IN to the vees (which is why you will get a ridge that your fingernail can detect).  The outside of this wear is still a reference.  Also, your flats numbered 5, 14 and 20 are in the same plane and ARE a reference point (especially for leveling the lathe).  Just make sure that any dings in them are carefully stoned out.
> 
> One of your earlier posts indicated that you could not catch your fingernail on the wear on the front vee?  Did you reassess this?  As for wear, it does not translate 1 to 1 on anything that you turn, so 0.005" of wear doesn't cause 0.005" of "change" as you try to turn a bar.


Hi SLK100. It is partly out of ignorance as to how much is important, and me just feeling my way into this. What I do with the information is rely on guys like yourself to have me know it is nothing to worry about. Also, given the general absence of information that could be found to make a sketch, it might prove useful to some reader with lathe bed in some other condition.

Finding out there is perhaps only an insignificant 0.001" wear is not something I knew to start with, and I am not even sure of it yet. Other than to notice I could not catch my finger on anything, I don't really know. It is also partly because there are inconsistent "features". I worry because of the severity of the dings, the appalling abuse of the quill, and for all I know, maybe somebody stoned the ridges out. I did imagine that the width of the carriage would to some extent "average out" one end or the other encountering wear. I have not yet done a proper clean-up. These are my first checks. Of course, once I stripped it down this far, I fall prone to the familiar instinct of not wanting to put back any bits that are not the best I can reasonably make them.

The flats 5, 14, and 20 are actually not so "flat" to look at. The original crisp edges are not there any more, kinda "rounded" over, although I dare say the very tops might still be at or near the unworn state, and would do if I put a level across it. I had the thought that, while avoiding the screw holes, surfaces 8 and 17 might do as an unworn reference.  The idea was to put an indicator mount magnetically on the saddle, and touch the indicator down onto (say) 17, then move the saddle along, watching to see if the saddle "lowers itself", and by how much. Using the tops of the vees for this might only be done by putting a parallel across them, and indicating to the top of that, while sliding the carriage along. If a few checks from the tops of the vees show they are parallel to any other unworn lines, then I will obviously use them, they being so convenient to place something across.

Basically I get mixed messages when checking it out. I reason that the machine might have had a relatively short but unhappy life - not long enough to accumulate much wear, but having a period of encountering the dings and bad stuff when used. I note it has been given a cursory paint job at some stage, in the light gray color, but without disassembly first. The paint brush marks went onto parts of the labels, over the South Bend logo. There are areas under near the rack gear that were "missed out", and other evidence on parts of the saddle and apron.

In all, I am feeling more heartened by what I am finding. With luck, the saddle, and all the bits it carries might also be OK for a straightforward re-assembly. I am thinking ahead to what might be done to clean up the MT#3 in the spindle without risking making things worse. The MT#2 in the quill could be worse, but only just about! It surprisingly still "grabs" a chuck taper in the non-abused remainder. I see an eBay price for a headstock with quill of unknown condition exceeds what I paid for the 9C! 
Not a fair comparison - it was such a bargain!

Perhaps just carefully putting in a MT#3 reamer, and gently cleaning up the 9A spindle taper internal surface by just turning the reamer by hand might preserve alignment with low risk. I will likely eventually be checking all that with a test bar. I see one can get reasonable examples from eBay, imported from India. (Item No. 174007647140). There are even some that have MT#2 on one end, and MT#3 on the other. I have no idea how good these are, nor even if I really need them. I suspect these might be among the most basic "essential" items when putting together a lathe.

Thanks again for your reply - G


----------



## SLK001 (Oct 20, 2019)

I don't remember your spindle being banged up.  If it will hold a MT3 center, then don't worry about it.  The spindles are usually harder that a whore's heart, so anything other than carbide is not going to fix it properly.  You will probably have the best luck just using a stone to knock down the high parts.  A HSS reamer might work, but will probably be destroyed in the process.  Your tailstocks are NOT hardened, so you can use your reamer to clean them up.

Your ways are banged up where most lathes suffer this type of damage.  Putting chucks on and off does this.  Nothing like forty pounds of steel all of a sudden becoming loose while trying to remove it.  This is why I made this way-protector-from-heavy-chucks accessory for my lathe.







As you can see, it is just a piece of plywood attached to a piece of pine that fits between the ways and protects them from falling chucks.

As for your ways, surfaces 8 and 17 are not precision surfaces, so don't use them as references.  As for bed wear, here is a chart that explains the effect of the wear on your cut:



As you can see, bed wear isn't really a concern for most of what we do in our hobby.  Now, if we should get a contract for parts for NASA, or the ESA, then we may need to start worrying!


----------



## graham-xrf (Oct 21, 2019)

SLK001: You are becoming my Florida Springs lifeline in this. Thanks so much for the pictures and info. I did see, on YouTube, a video where the guy made up a wooden arrangement, I think of two pieces of plywood spaced by 2" wood, the bottom cut to fit across the ways. He pushed it up to the chuck, and marked around the chuck with a Sharpie, and cut the circles out, so that he could slide it over the chuck. Then unscrew the chuck, then tie it on to the jig. His plywoods also featured a carry handle This was to ease the business of unscrewing the chuck off the spindle, and getting it away without dropping it. I think he may have had some quite heavy 4-jaw kit, and like all of us, was feeling his age!  In the end, he found his marked out holes ended up a tad lower than convenient to exactly screw a chuck back on, but that would be easily adjusted.

Regarding the spindle. I just looked up it, and it looked yuk, but if it is hard as you say, then it might clean up with rags and solvent. The "yuk" looked (hopefully) oily. I will only know if it is the "rusty" sort when I get a better look. Right now, it is, of course, all still attached to the headstock, which is stashed in nearby along with all the other major bits. I will be taking it all apart, if only to change the wicks, and it is definitely getting a new paint job!

The good news here is that I have established that, despite their "roundness" look, the tops of the SB-9A vees are pretty much parallel to the planed surfaces underneath. I mean surfaces 2 measured up to 5, and 23 up to 20. If they go up and down, they do it together! The nominal distance was clearly 3/4" when it started out. I measured at 10 intervals along the bed. They have their ups and downs in the tenths of thousandths, but nothing looking serious. The "front" top vees measure is about 0.001 more than at the "back", but that is all the measurements for the whole length. However high or low, they seem to go up and down together. We are in the region where some of the values are real, and some may have a component related to my measuring skills. The micrometer reads to 0.0001 on a vernier thing on the stem, using a 25 count around the barrel, and it can be a tad confusing until you get used to it.

I also have reason to think that surfaces 8 and 17 are likewise parallel to the reference surfaces. Surfaces 3 and 22 have no excuse to be anything other than original.

Your chart shows that even 0.01" wear,  which is enough to have some members decide to either repair or retire a lathe, is still no big deal for making most things they might attempt. Thanks for that!

We are now into some of the filthy grubby cleaning up stages. Wire brushes, powered and otherwise. Paint stripper(s) various. Experimental de-rusting things going on. I won't bore anyone with all that!

In passing, you should know that the work I do has both of those outfits you mention as customers at the end of the chain. Hopefully not for much longer. (I am trying to move on to a life with no more rat-race, and not afflicted by "meetingitus" several times a week)!


----------

