# Saving a Logan 825



## bhusted

I managed to pick up a Logan 825 on CL for less than scrap value.  It had been disassembled by some previous owner many years ago and the guy I bought it from was just trying to clean the place out and didn't want it thrown away.  For the sum of $25 I came home with ~300lbs of cast iron.  As far as I can tell, most of the parts are there (Bed, head-stock, tail-stock, carriage, QCGB, etc.).  Some parts are rusty, others are slathered in paint, and some have been spray painted red???  It really is a basket case, but I'm going to work through and see if I can get it back together and give it a little TLC.  

One of the issues I've encountered right away is that it was made to be mounted on Logan's stand with the motor mounted underneath.  Since I don't have the stand and locating one would be a significant challenge, I'm trying to get creative.  I have a spare 3/4hp Baldor motor that would suit it, but without the intermediate jack-shaft, it would only be one speed and much too fast.  I've seen some people using permanent magnet DC motors on lathes so that they have speed control.  Would one of these have sufficient power to run the lathe with a smallish single reduction?  Obviously I'd need something bigger than the treadmill motor others use on the 7" mini-lathe.

Does anyone have any pictures of how the head-stock is mounted to the bed?  There are two bolt holes on the chuck side of the head-stock that look like they would clamp it to the bed with some sort of bar underneath.  I don't see any provision for a clamp on the back side of the head-stock.  The .pdf manual I found on Vintage Machinery seems to show mounting points on the front and rear.

Thanks for any help or guidance you can provide.


----------



## T. J.

I can't give you any advise on the dc motor, but another option is a 3 phase ac motor combined with a VFD.  The VFD (variable frequency drive) allows you to power a 3 phase motor with a single phase 220 V line, and also provides variable speed.


----------



## martik777

A treadmill motor should be adequate for most work. Control with rectifier and SCR controller





There should be a threaded hole in the front and back bottom of the HS and corresponding plates that fit under the lathe ways which are probably missing.

Any photos?


----------



## wa5cab

Just so that no one blows one up thinking that all VFD's are single phase input, that isn't true.  They are made both ways.  And some will run on either, with some de-rating if run on single-phase.


----------



## eeler1

Re; the headstock, going by memory as I had an 825 some years ago.   The chuck end has two bolts that hold it to a crosspiece under the ways, similar to the tailstock but not a sliding feature.  These bolts are inserted from the top and screw into the crosspiece below the ways.  The outboard end should have one threaded hole up into the headstock, so a bolt goes up from underneath, through the crosspiece, up into the headstock.  Kind of the opposite of the chuck side.  Cross pieces are just slabs of steel, maybe 3/8" thick.  

Photo is from my 957, which I believe has a similar mount.  Single bolt on the outboard end is actually a thru hole, not threaded.  Maybe look through your boxes of parts for these pieces, or easy enough to make.




Good luck on the stand.  You might be able to rig up a couple of pulley options and then run 3phase thru a vfd to get most of your speeds in between.  That machine has v-belts, I think, so you wouldn't have to deal with a v to flat belt conversion.  Use the fenner style link belts.  Won't be factory, but you can make your own speed chart.


----------



## bhusted

Thanks for the help guys.  I should have mentioned that I can't run a VFD since I only have access to 120v power in my garage.  It's not ideal, but going to require some creativity on how to power this thing.  I already have a fully functional 12" Atlas/Craftsman lathe that I can use to make parts for repairs.  My plan is to sell off one of the two once I got both up and running.  The Logan is nice that it's about the same size but probably twice as heavy and obviously built better just from the little bit of going over it that I've done already.  

I've seen the ubiquitious treadmill motor postings that people have made, but didn't think that it would have enough power to make it worth while.  It's cheap enough that it might be worth a try for initial startup.  I'm happy to entertain other ideas.

For the mounting bolts, I appreciate the pictures you posted eeler1.  The only part in the misc pile that looks like it works for mounting the head-stock is made of stamped sheet metal maybe 3/16 thick.  It has the 2 holes that line up with the chuck end of the head-stock though.  I will probably try and make some that look like what you posted.  I will also flip the head-stock over again this morning and take a closer look at the other end.


----------



## markba633csi

There are VFDs made that take 120 volt input and give 220 volt 3-phase out.  Or you could go the treadmill motor route for little money, if you find one cheap (or free!) With your other lathe you could make the pieces you need to adapt the motor to the Logan- with or without a countershaft arrangement
M


----------



## bhusted

markba633csi said:


> There are VFDs made that take 120 volt input and give 220 volt 3-phase out.  Or you could go the treadmill motor route for little money, if you find one cheap (or free!) With your other lathe you could make the pieces you need to adapt the motor to the Logan- with or without a countershaft arrangement
> M



I didn't know that there were such things as VFDs made to run on 120v.  My knowledge/experience working with larger AC power is limited.  I guess it really comes down to the question if I would be able to get away with running directly from the motor to spindle with a small belt reduction or if a jackshaft setup is going to be required.  The treadmill motors seem to run at about 6k rpm, so would require a significant reduction to operate.  I've seen larger PM DC motors that run about 1800rpm at 90v DC.  My understanding is that this would represent a constant torque through the motor speeds, but only the rated HP at top speed.  If I could get a 2:1ish reduction from the motor to the spindle, then I would be in the correct ballpark for speed.  

I just worked for a couple of hours breaking down the larger assemblies to find out what's missing/broken and have been pleasantly surprised.  Most parts seem to be in fairly good shape.  I've got the rusty parts soaking in a tub of evaporust.  Here are some pictures of what I'm dealing with.













Here are a couple of pictures from the bottom of the head-stock and the apparent "clamp".













I don't see anywhere on the back of the head-stock where a clamp would bolt through.


----------



## Nogoingback

In our downloads section, there is a Logan 800 series manual and parts list.  It shows a short set screw up inside the hole with a bolt threaded into the same hole.





This is from my Logan 200 parts list, but it appears to be the same as the 800 series list.  Part number 0322 is described as a Socket Set Screw, 7/16-14 x 5/16.

If I remember correctly, you have to level up to Gold Member status before you have access to downloads.  Well worth it since it includes
the operators manual and parts list.  You can also purchase that manual from Logan directly if you want.


----------



## bhusted

And the winner is....



Nogoingback!
I would not have guessed that the set screw should be farther up into the casting and that another fastener would share the hole.  I just went out and threaded that set screw much farther in and there is plenty of space for the additional bolt.  I have the parts manual and other documentation from vintagemachinery.org for the 825 and that has been very helpful to identify the missing parts.  Thanks for helping to sort that out.  Now just make the plates and clean up the rest of this mess.

You wouldn't happen to have any creative solutions for powering this thing, would you?


----------



## eeler1

Steam?


----------



## bhusted

I like where you're head's at.


----------



## Nogoingback

bhusted said:


> You wouldn't happen to have any creative solutions for powering this thing, would you?




More pics please.  Lets have a look at your headstock from the back side as well as from above.
Although, judging from the pics you've already posted, you have a bit of work to do before you need a motor...


----------



## bhusted

Okay.  I'll get some more pictures today.  The head-stock drive is comprised of a double groove v-belt approximately 3" OD.  It's my understanding that the belts are intended to go down through the bed and into the cabinet where the jackshaft and motor would live.  There is no opening in the back of the head-stock for belts to pass through.  

I did some browsing on eBay last night and found several DC motors for about $100 that could potentially be mounted under the bed.  Using a 2" OD pulley on the motor would bring it down to a max speed of 1100rpm at 90v DC.  With a double pulley and almost 180 deg of belt wrap, I should think that this arrangement would be suitable provided that the motor develops sufficient torque.  

I know that I'm a long way off from getting this lathe up and running, but I want to have a plan for how to power it before I put too much time into repairs.  If I can't run it, selling as a whole will be difficult and I may need to resort to selling it for parts.


----------



## markba633csi

I would say you might want another stage of speed reduction considering the headstock you have.  Most DC treadmill motors will be somewhere in the range of 2500 rpm or less (probably less) but being able to slow your spindle down to around 60 rpm (with backgears)
can be very useful for threading and some types of interrupted cutting.
The KB brand of dc speed controls are excellent and can sometimes be found on Ebay for less than 50$
Often times the treadmill controllers are too clumsy to use (speed adjustment with up/down buttons, slow ramp start up, etc.)
DC motors have good torque at low rpm
-Mark


----------



## wa5cab

Nogoingback said:


> If I remember correctly, you have to level up to Gold Member status before you have access to downloads.



Actually, any Donor level from Silver ($10.00 per year) on up has access to Downloads.  The other common privilege that requires Gold level ($25.00 per year) is the ability to list items for sale.


----------



## bhusted

Here are some additional pictures of the head-stock.  I spent a little time scraping off a few layers of paint and grease and it already looks less daunting.  Unfortunately, I discovered one missing tooth on the large back gear.  The spindle threads are not in great shape, but are serviceable.  The take-up nut on the back of the spindle looks like someone has had at it with a punch.


----------



## Nogoingback

As long as it's going to be steam powered, you might as well drop a belt down from an overhead line shaft while you're at it.


----------



## bhusted

Any other ideas for powering this thing other than using my model steam engine?  This is the type of DC motor that I've been thinking of.  
90v DC motor 1750rpm

My plan would be to mount it from the bed underneath the head-stock.  I don't have any really good dimensions to go off of for if it would fit or not.  The mounting flange may have to get modified and the electrical box is probably in the way.  The fan would also probably be in a prime location to pickup chips.  

Another thought I had was to find a head-stock from a 820 model to mount the motor off of the back side, using the pulley arrangement on my current spindle.


----------



## martik777

May be able to mount a motor behind the HS if you mod the HS casting. 

Here's a youtube 825 restore: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVYxpZ1B3c41ZysowqKMXsg/search?query=logan


----------



## bhusted

I came across that restoration.  He was fortunate enough to have the bench that it's mounted to for the motor.  I really don't want to cut up the headstock that I have, but if I could find a headstock where the belt goes out the back, then that might work.


----------



## bhusted

A couple of questions for you all.

What is the spindle taper supposed to be for this lathe?  According to the table I found here, it should be a #3 morse taper. I tried a MT3 drill in the spindle while cleaning it up and the hole in the spindle seems too large. The hole at the very end of the spindle is 1.005". I don't have a MT4 arbor to test. The spindle threads are 1-1/2-8.
Does anyone have have some of the bolts that hold the compound on the saddle that they would mind measuring for me?  The ones in mine are abominations that someone created from hex bolts on a bench grinder.  After being stuck at home all week on the computer "working from home" I need to get out into the shop and do some turning therapy.  From the parts manual I have, it looks like they are 5/16-18 thread but I don't have any other dimensions.  Anything you can provide would be helpful.


----------



## eeler1

The 825 doesn’t have a 4mt taper in the spindle.  It might be a proprietary taper, as some Logan’s do have.  Try the Logan site and ask Scott Logan, make sure you provide the serial number;  http://www.lathe.com/contact_us.htm


----------



## T. J.

According to the chart on the Logan website, it should be a #3MT.


----------



## bhusted

Thanks for the info about contacting Logan.  I've reached out to them, but I don't know about the serial number.  According to his website, the SN should be located "stamped on top of the bed, right hand end, between the front V and flat ways."  I see nothing in that area on the bed of my lathe.  The only markings I could find on the bed are below.  The first is underneath where the headstock mounts.  The second is at the tailstock end at the back.










In the midst of other cleaning I decided to make some new bolts for the compound.  I don't really know what the originals are supposed to look like, but they work better than the abominations someone hacked up on the bench grinder.  These are 5/16-24, where I think the originals were 5/16-18.  They were made from 3/4" CRS.  I should probably remake them from some tool steel so that I can harden them at some point if I get everything else working.


----------



## Nogoingback

It's very strange that you lathe lacks a serial number: I've never heard anyone else on the forum report that.  I would send 
your pictures to Scott Logan and see what he thinks.  The area in the lower photo with the square in it is where the s/n is usually found.

Your bolts look just fine and are similar to the stock parts.  I would post a picture of mine if I didn't have a setup
that can't be broken down right now.


----------



## bhusted

I've sent an email off to Scott with the information I've got and hopefully he can tell me more.  I did some additional cleaning on the bed before sending the message to him and found this in the location he says the SN should be.  





It could be just me, but I think some of those scratches look like numbers.  It's strange that there could be this much wear in a non-bearing surface of the bed to wipe out the SN if that is in fact what those are.  You can also see what a sad state some of the bed is in.  

While I was searching for information on the bed, I also did some more cleaning of the red paint the previous butcher put on.  I can't really figure out the plan if there was one from the previous owner.  Some parts like the bed and headstock have layers and layers of paint just slathered on all over the place.  This has obviously accumulated over many many years.  The tailstock and carriage are another matter.  The only paint on them is the red spray paint, so someone took the time to strip off the other layers of paint including the original gray, but didn't bother to de-grease or mask off anything before hitting it with the rattle can.  They also chose to paint machined surfaces that obviously should not be painted.  As a result, some of the red comes off just by looking at it and other parts required a razor blade and gray scotchbrite to clean off.  The bearing surfaces of the tailstock are a perfect example.













The debate now is if I paint all of these parts before putting it back together since I've broken them down to inspect and clean, or assemble everything to verify the function of the lathe before taking the time to properly paint everything.  In the meantime, I've got a lot more red paint to clean off.


----------



## francist

bhusted said:


> It could be just me, but I think some of those scratches look like numbers


I agree, there are traces of what may have been the serial number there. I make the last digit at "4", the second to last maybe also "4", then unknown followed by what appears to me a "1" and "5" maybe?

Have you tried using raking light -- there may be enough left to get a better confirmation. Raking light is simply a focused light source ( I prefer a Maglight and not an LED ) held at a very shallow angle to the surface. The light beam rakes across the high spots and shows the lows as shadow, and can be quite effective. Dim ambient lighting helps. Might also try a pencil rubbing through tissue paper and see if that brings something up.

-frank


----------



## bhusted

Thanks.  I'll try that idea with the light.  I tried the pencil rubbing and really got nothing.


----------



## Nogoingback

bhusted said:


> I've sent an email off to Scott with the information I've got and hopefully he can tell me more.  I did some additional cleaning on the bed before sending the message to him and found this in the location he says the SN should be.
> 
> It could be just me, but I think some of those scratches look like numbers.  It's strange that there could be this much wear in a non-bearing surface of the bed to wipe out the SN if that is in fact what those are.  You can also see what a sad state some of the bed is in.
> 
> While I was searching for information on the bed, I also did some more cleaning of the red paint the previous butcher put on.  I can't really figure out the plan if there was one from the previous owner.  Some parts like the bed and headstock have layers and layers of paint just slathered on all over the place.  This has obviously accumulated over many many years.  The tailstock and carriage are another matter.  The only paint on them is the red spray paint, so someone took the time to strip off the other layers of paint including the original gray, but didn't bother to de-grease or mask off anything before hitting it with the rattle can.  They also chose to paint machined surfaces that obviously should not be painted.  As a result, some of the red comes off just by looking at it and other parts required a razor blade and gray scotchbrite to clean off.  The bearing surfaces of the tailstock are a perfect example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The debate now is if I paint all of these parts before putting it back together since I've broken them down to inspect and clean, or assemble everything to verify the function of the lathe before taking the time to properly paint everything.  In the meantime, I've got a lot more red paint to clean off.




I would try to assess the condition of the lathe first and come up with a list of what's needed to make it a working lathe, as well as a cost estimate.  While you have very little money in the lathe so far, costs can add up very quickly.   (Ask me how I know this...)
One thing to look at is the condition of the spindle bearings.  The bearing at the chuck end can't be found at your local
bearing supply house, and when I bought one a few years ago it was a bit over 200 bucks.  Logan sells them. The small one is standard and not expensive.


----------



## eeler1

Red paint looks funky on a lathe.  Unless it’s a late model Emco from Austria.


----------



## wa5cab

The spindle head bearing is and apparently always has been a special order by Logan to their bearing manufacturer.  My understanding is that it is first a double-row of balls (two ball bearings in one) and second, there is a specified pre-load between the two rows of balls.  If there were enough room, you might be able to simulate that with two bearings and a selected shim between either the inner or outer races.  But as I have never seen anyone mention having done that, I assume that there must not be enough axial space available to do it with anything off the shelf.


----------



## Nogoingback

This is an original bearing out of a Model 200, which I believe is the same as the OP's machine.  The snap ring locates the bearing
under the plate on the chuck-end of the headstock.  I doubt that two bearings would fit inside the headstock, and can't imagine
how a person could ensure that the preload on such a setup was correct. (Assuming the bearings were designed for that.). Even
though the Logan bearing is a bit expensive,  in the long run I think it's better to just bite the bullet and get one rather than trying
to duplicate this arrangement.

There are folks that have succeeded in cleaning out dirty bearings and re-greasing them.  If the OP tears down his head stock, 
that's an option assuming the bearing itself is in good condition.


----------



## bhusted

Thanks for the information on the bearings.  I'm unsure if I should break down the headstock or not.  I'm worried that I'll do more damage than good to the bearings by trying to take it apart.  Rolling the spindle by hand feels smooth, but it's hard to asses the condition of the bearings without them being under load at some speed.  This is one of the reasons I wanted to power it up.  Maybe I should shift to working on that problem.  

As for parts that I've found that need to be replaced or repaired:

The halfnuts are missing, but I've already found and purchased a set in good condition for a good price.
I will remake one or both of the clamps for the headstock
The carriage lock is missing, but is non-critical and something I can make or buy
The tailstock quill locking lever (binding lever) and stud are missing, but I think I can make or adapt something to work
One of the back gears is missing a tooth, but all other teeth are in good condition.  If I get everything else going, I'll probably just try to braze this up and file the tooth form.
I think that all of the other parts are there and serviceable.  The bed and bearings are probably the biggest unknowns.  

I did hear back from Scott Logan and he confirmed that my spindle should be a #3MT and thinks that someone modified it for some reason.


----------



## Nogoingback

If you haven't looked already, there are lots of parts for 10" Logans on ebay.


----------



## bhusted

Thanks.  I did some looking there and found someone selling a spindle that is a good replacement for mine.  The threads in the nose are good and the tapered bore is intact.  My plan is to breakdown the spindle, clean and grease the bearings and re-assemble with the new spindle.  I plan to power it briefly by connecting it to another motor that I have with a pulley I think I've made the decision to keep this thing.  

So far the total investment is:

$25 for the lathe
$70 for replacement halfnuts
$60 for replacement spindle
I'll keep you posted.


----------



## eeler1

For what you paid for the lathe, you can spend a few bucks on parts


----------



## bhusted

That was my thought as well.  Though I don't want to go wild, I want it to be a well running machine when complete.


----------



## bhusted

I decided to take a break from sitting at the computer working from home and go down to the garage to clean up some more lathe parts.

I was able to get the QCGB off and inspect it today.  I knew it wasn't locked up, but I wanted to take a look at all of the gear teeth and assess the condition.  Other than being covered in this disgusting paint and schmoo, it seems like everything is in good shape.  I do have a couple of questions though. 

Does anyone have a technique for removing the brass plate on the front?  I saw one recommendation for using a dremel to grind a slot in the pins and remove them like a screw.  I tried that with 2 of them and had no success.  The plate is not in the best condition, but I don't want to damage it any further. 
There is an angle bracket coming off the side of the gearbox underneath the leadscrew with 2 set screws in it.  I don't see anything on the parts diagram that looks like it.  You can see it in the second picture.
Are the sprung handles held on with tapered pins?  I don't want to just go hammering on them.  I'd like to get them apart to clean up the knurled portion that you move and they are a little stiff. 
I'm looking for replacements for the oilers and not having a lot of luck.  I need to replace the one in the tailstock as well as a couple on the QCGB.  I've found a lot of 6mm ones and some that are plated steel, but I'd like to use brass like the originals.  Does anyone have a source for 1/4" brass oilers?


----------



## wa5cab

1.  If you are lucky, the drive screws that attach the settings plate were drilled through.  If you can find the holes on the inside of the GB case, use the correct diameter pin punch to drift the screws out.


----------



## bhusted

Unfortunately the drive screws go into blind holes.  Their locations are such that they can't be drilled from the back to be pushed out either.


----------



## wa5cab

OK.  Then all that I can suggest is to use a Dremel tool to slot the heads and then use an impact screwdriver to try to back them out.


----------



## T. J.

I had the same problem with the drive pins on mine.  I had better luck grinding flats on the edges to provide purchase for Vise-Grips.  It's definitely a more tedious job though, since you have to be careful not to get into the data plate.


----------



## bhusted

T. J. said:


> I had the same problem with the drive pins on mine.  I had better luck grinding flats on the edges to provide purchase for Vise-Grips.  It's definitely a more tedious job though, since you have to be careful not to get into the data plate.



Thanks.  I tried a couple of other techniques that I read about (Vise-grips, chisel, heat).  Nothing worked so I ended up grinding them off carefully and I'll drill/tap some new holes to attach it when I'm finished with this.  I didn't realize that those little pins were hardened.  Now I need to see if I can make the plate readable again...


----------



## bhusted

I got the headstock broken down this morning.  The original spindle is in really rough shape and had really been hammered on by a previous owner.  The rear take-up nut had been hammered and hit installed/removed with a punch more than once.  I'll be making a new nut before I install the replacement spindle.   The nut on my Atlas has a set screw and a brass plate to bear on the spindle threads.  I'm not sure if the original nut on the Logan had a similar set screw or not.  If it did, the threads were too mangled from people using punches on it to tell.  

I have not removed the smaller rear bearing, but I've found replacements from $10-20.  Other than a known manufacturer, is there anything special to be looking for here?  It looks like the original bearing is from New Departure?  I'm going to try to clean and relube the front bearing.


----------



## wa5cab

My understanding is that there was nothing special about the left or rear bearing which according to the Logan manual was originally made by New Departure..  I would probably try at least to replace it with the same bearing from the same manufacturer.

Neither the text nor the parts list for the 800 Series mentions a set screw, but if I were going to make a new takeup nut, I would include two @ 90 degrees, with the brass plugs that you mentioned under them.  And unlike a lathe like the Atlas with tapered roller bearings, don't over-tighten it.  Which is another reason for having set screws in it.


----------



## Nogoingback

bhusted said:


> I got the headstock broken down this morning.  The original spindle is in really rough shape and had really been hammered on by a previous owner.  The rear take-up nut had been hammered and hit installed/removed with a punch more than once.  I'll be making a new nut before I install the replacement spindle.   The nut on my Atlas has a set screw and a brass plate to bear on the spindle threads.  I'm not sure if the original nut on the Logan had a similar set screw or not.  If it did, the threads were too mangled from people using punches on it to tell.
> 
> I have not removed the smaller rear bearing, but I've found replacements from $10-20.  Other than a known manufacturer, is there anything special to be looking for here?  It looks like the original bearing is from New Departure?  I'm going to try to clean and relube the front bearing.




The nut on an Atlas has a set screw because the nut is used to adjust the preload of the bearing.  The Logan doesn't have one because you can't adjust the bearings at all.  The large (chuck side) bearing has the preload " built in", which is
part of the reason it's special and not available off the shelf.  The small bearing just supports the spindle at that end.  When the nut is tightened, it simply secures the bearing to the spindle.  Any bearing supply place should be able to
match it.


----------



## bhusted

That's a good point about the set screw.  The reason I asked is because the PO had taken a center punch to the threads on the spindle where they met the nut in an attempt to keep it from backing off I assumed.  I can't overstate how bad the original nut was.  Hopefully I get a chance to machine a new nut tomorrow.

I've got a replacement New Departure bearing on its way.


----------



## wa5cab

It would still be a good idea to put one or two set screws into the nut to keep it from loosening and backing off.


----------



## Nogoingback

In practice, the nut seems to stay put reliably, or at least  mine has and I haven't seen any posts from folks having that problem.  It seems that if a set screw in the nut were tightened enough to do any good it would damage the threads on the spindle.  If I remember right, my 618 had a nut with a small threaded segment that the set screw acted on. 
The stock Logan nut, or a nut made by the OP wouln't have that feature.


----------



## bhusted

New nut is finished.  I made it a little bit wider than the original 3/8" vs 5/16".  I find singlepoint threading so satisfying.  I drilled two cross holes at 180 degrees apart.  I used a #21 so that they can fit my 1/8" pin spanner and I have the option to tap one or both at 10-32 in the future.  One more part down, many many more to go.


----------



## bhusted

I'm really glad that I have this lathe to work on while we are staying at home.  It's been good to take small breaks and head down to the shop to work on cleaning, removing paint, repairing, etc while trying to work from home.  In an act of biblical optimism, I also picked up some paint before the stay home order went into effect.  

Today I did some more work on the spindle.  The nut retaining the main bearing was RFT and required some work to get it off.  Now I need to rig up some sort of press using threaded rod to get the bearing off of the spindle so I can properly clean it and then assemble my replacement spindle.  The new rear bearing should be delivered tomorrow.  What is the torque spec on the front retaining nut?  I don't know if the PO used loctite or if it was really that tight.  Getting the back gear bushings out was also interesting because the PO had gone after them with a punch too.  

I have also been cleaning up the QCGB.  I thought that the original Gits oilers were brass, but I think they may just be zinc plated.  Mine are painted shut and currently soaking in a bath of lacquer thinner.  I also found the mystery bracket I showed in one of my previous posts.  




I assume it's just to take up the weight of the gearbox and keep the leadscrew straight?  Does anyone have any information about the pins that hold on the sprung handles for the gearbox?  I tried using a wire brush to clean them up so I could get a better look and tapping them with a pin punch, but so far no luck.  I don't want to break anything trying to get them apart.


----------



## Nogoingback

When I replaced the bearings on my lathe I used a punch and a hammer to remove and replace the nut for the big
 bearing.  This was suggested to me by Scott Logan.   There is no torque spec specified.  If yours is like mine there is a dust shield on the spindle: I would suggest leaving it alone since they are no longer available.  My stock New Departure bearing was unshielded on one side.  If yours is the same, I would clean and re-grease in place if possible.


----------



## bhusted

With the poor condition of the actual spindle shaft, I've decided to replace it, so the bearing needs to come off of the old spindle and get installed on the new spindle.  Originally I wanted to just leave it alone, but the deeper I dug, the worse it got.  Why replace the nut?  Its only purpose is to retain the bearing since the pre-load is already set within the bearing.  This is why I didn't understand why the nut needed to be so tight.  While I've got the main bearing off, I want to give it a good cleaning and new grease.  What sort of grease do people recommend for this application?  

The dust shield on the the spindle nose is in rough shape and I've already done some work to straighten it out with a hammer and dolly.  It's functional, but not pretty.


----------



## wa5cab

The nut on the left end of the spindle does not need to be that tight.  That was why I said that the nut needed a brass-backed set screw.  So that you didn't have to tighten it enough that it probably wouldn't come loose.  

The reason that @bhusted made a new one is that the old one looked like it had been used to practice how to use a chisel.  There is a photo of the old one a few posts back.  I wouldn't want that thing on any machine of mine, either.  Anyone seeing it might assume that I had done it!


----------



## Nogoingback

I think we're  talking about two different nuts.   The small nut  that bhusted made goes on the end of the spindle
adjacent to the small bearing. The other, bigger nut secures the larger (chuck end) bearing.
That nut is normally quite tight and is the nut I was talking about when I mentioned using a punch and hammer.
Mine was slotted for a (very large) hook wrench so that's how the factory tightened them but even if I found one
that size, it would have been prohibitively expensive.  I used a proper wrench for the small nut on mine.


bhusted, this is how I held the spindle when I re-installed the nut: the material is a thick piece of leather I bought
at a crafts store.  I only tightened the vice enough to keep the spindle from turning to avoid distorting the spindle.






You mentioned using a drawbar to re-assemble the spindle.  This is how I did it, though the plastic
pipe was a poor idea.  I would use a steel tube next time, with properly squared ends.  The spindle
is threaded into the body of a four jaw chuck for support.





I don't know about grease, but a call to a bearing supply place would probably give you the answer.
My understanding is that over greasing is to be avoided, and that the bearing should be about a third
full, but don't quote me on that. . If you post your question in the general section, there are folks around
here that know more about that subject than I do.


----------



## bhusted

It's true, I think we were referring to 2 different nuts.  I have already replaced the nut on the left end of the spindle.  The nut that retains the main spindle bearing next to the chuck was the one that was ridiculously tight.  I didn't damage the nut taking it off, but it took some serious torque to remove it.  This nut seems to have the same function as the smaller one on the left, so my question is why does it need to be so tight?  It's only retaining the inner race of the main bearing.  

The PVC seems like a bold move, but that is exactly what I was thinking of doing for the bearing.  Thanks for the confirmation.  I'll do some more looking and asking about grease for the bearing.  My new one for the other end didn't show up today, so I did some other work instead.  After sitting at the computer for 6 hours today I wanted feel like I accomplished something real.  Instead of scraping and cleaning more greasy, rusty parts I decided to clean up the hand wheels.  The first two were fine, but the tailstock came with a surprise.  I found that the handle had been replaced with a brass one at some point in its life.  For the others I was able to drill a small hole behind the handle and drive them out with a punch.  When I drilled the hole in this one I saw threads.  I hit the outer part on the buffing wheel to shine it up a bit and the inner part will get painted when I get to that stage.


----------



## Nogoingback

When I removed the large nut, I couldn't get it  to loosen up at all until I gave a session with a heat gun.  After that it was
easy. 
When I installed it, I used the punch/hammer method until it was "just right".  

Like I said, PVC pipe really wasn't the greatest idea though I did get it to work.  Steel pipe is a much better idea.
If I were doing it today, I'd use my arbor press...


----------



## bhusted

After another day of sitting inside on the computer I was ready to start working on one of the more disgusting jobs of this project, removing the layers and layers of paint, grease, oil and gunk from the lathe bed.  I started with a paint scraper, but eventually had to resort to the wire wheel on the grinder.  You can see that some of the original blue gray is still there.  






As with other parts of this project the deeper I go, the more I find.  I wasn't going to take the legs off until I looked underneath and found out how bad it was.  I also discovered that 3 of the 8 bolts holding the legs on were missing...






While I'm not going for a show piece here, cleaning up the space between the ways is going to be difficult.  The casting is much rougher and the old paint/grease is going to be difficult to clean so that new paint has any hope of sticking.


----------



## RandyM

I am planning on using paint stripper to prepare my bed.


----------



## eeler1

Did you ever get any info on the odd symbols/numbers under the headstock?  Serial # should be on front flat (between bearing ways) at the tailstock end.  That was missing, wasn't it?

The decision as to how far to go has to be made early on.  I find that once you get into it to a point, you hate to take any shortcuts.  Gotta make things as good as you can.  Years back, I had a Logan 957 and took some of the castings to a shop to sandblasted.  Otherwise I just couldn't get through all the crud and wasn't set up to use the really nasty chemicals.  Don't recall if I taped the ways and had the rest of the bed sandblasted. But it turned out pretty good, and was really easy to prep and paint afterwards.


----------



## bhusted

The SN was pretty well wiped out.  The only couple of digits that are somewhat legible are a couple of 4's and possibly a 3?  I've given up on getting any more info.  At this point it's a machine that makes smaller cylinders from larger cylinders made by Logan.

I think it's been pretty well determined by this point that I'm going through the whole thing.  I've got enough money into it now buying parts and materials that I'm going to make it work.  As gross as some parts are, it has given me something easy and mindless to do after long days of being on the computer, working from home.  

I tried the wire cup wheel and a scraper on the webs of the bed between the ways today.  It was clear after a few minutes that this was not a winning solution.  I'm trying some chemical paint stripper on the bed now.  I didn't have a lot of success with it on the headstock, but it's worth another try.  I don't want to go the route of media blasting.  While the chemicals are working on the bed.  I started cleaning up some other parts like bolts and brackets caked with paint.  I don't know how the PO stored the parts of this thing, but it seemed like the cover for the gears on the headstock had been used as a bird bath for a while.  The inside was very rusty.  Since it is roughly bowl shaped, I filled it with Evaporust and covered with cellophane.  Hopefully it looks a little better tomorrow.


----------



## wa5cab

Sounds to me like the best solution for the bed would be electrolysis.


----------



## bhusted

wa5cab said:


> Sounds to me like the best solution for the bed would be electrolysis.



I've used electrolysis in the past for rust removal, but have not been very successful with removing paint this way.  Is there better electrolyte than baking soda to remove the paint when using electrolysis?  

I've put cleaning the bed on hold for a little bit while I think of what I want to do.  Instead I've started painting parts that have already been cleaned and prepped.  This way the paint will have time to harden up before I start assembling things.  I know that there is a good match for the original paint available from Benjamin-Moore, but I just decided to go with brush on Rustoleum.  I wanted something inexpensive and readily available, so this Logan is going to be "Smoke Gray".  







I also made some new headstock clamps for when I get to that point.  They are 1 1/2" x 1/2"  1018.  This was the first real project done with the milling attachment on my Atlas.  It went surprisingly well and I'm happy with how they fit.  The worst part was tramming that thing in.  






The final update is that I have purchased a 3/4 HP 1750RPM DC motor and speed controller.  I'll fabricate the necessary brackets to mount it underneath the headstock when the time comes.  For now, more cleaning, de-greasing and painting.


----------



## Nogoingback

I'd say that smoke gray is an excellent color for a Logan.  Nice job on the clamps as well.  It's looking like you're making good progress on your lathe.


----------



## wa5cab

I don't know of an electrolyte better than and as safe as baking soda.  If there is still quite a bit of firmly adhered original paint, perhaps you could first brush on some cheap paint remover with the bed sitting on blocks in the empty container and then after a few days pour in the water and soda which should take care of the paint remover.


----------



## bhusted

I'm still torn over how much work I want to put into the bed.  The outside is clean, but the bottom and the inner webs are still nasty.  I thought I had a good idea to take it to the local DIY carwash station and give it the hose down with the pressure washer and de-greaser, but was surprised to find that even this was closed because of the virus.  

I don't doubt that the results I could get with your method would be better, but I wonder if it's worth the time and effort.  Once I finish painting this round of parts, I think I'll reassess the bed and decide what to do.  Right now I'm leaning toward just doing the best I can with the wire brush and throw some paint on it.  

Today I put another coat of paint on some of the parts and made a new t-nut for the toolpost.  I want to be able to mount the AXA toolpost from my Atlas on the Logan to test, but of course the slot is a different size.  The slot on the Logan is in poor shape, so I made the nut a pretty tight fit and longer so that it has a better hold on the compound.  I'm just waiting on a M14x1.5 tap for the center hole.


----------



## bhusted

Some more work that looks like progress done on the Logan.  There were enough painted parts that I could actually start reassembling some parts.   When I removed the nameplate from the QCGB, I had to grind off the drive screws.  Not wanting to do that again, I elected to refasten it with some #4-40 screws.  They are probably a little larger than needed, but look okay.  I was also able to save the Gits oilers.  The one for the tailstock end of the leadscrew is questionable and the ball oiler from the tailstock was trash.





The headstock is still just an empty shell.  I wanted to see what everything was looking like.  I have the new spindle ready to be installed, but haven't done anything about the backgears.  If I assemble the spindle without the backgears, will I have to remove the spindle again to be able to install them?






The tailstock is almost entirely complete.  I need to source a new oiler for the top and a better looking nut for the hand wheel.  You can also see that I mananaged to find a quill lock on ebay.  The stud will need to be made for this.  In normal operation of the quill lock, which threaded part moves?  Is it the thread in the tailstock or the thread in the handle?  Obviously the dauber is missing, but that is just normal operation.






On the carriage, most parts are ready, but I did not install the feed screws.  The gib screws are in pretty bad shape.  Are there good replacements for these or do people just turn a point on some regular set screws?  Cleaning these parts up, I found that the dials and hardware were even worse than the ones on my Atlas.  I plan to make some new, larger dials for the compound and cross slide.  While the compound was apart, I took the opportunity to make the new support bushing.  The new compound dial will be 1.5" diameter.  You can see the difference in the size with the original dial.  














Does anyone have dimensions or detailed pictures of the carriage lock?  I was going to buy the nut from Logan, but I figure if I can make it, I might as well.  I've also discovered that there is another missing part for the banjo.  Part LA-510A seems to be a slotted bracket that holds up the back end of the banjo.  I can't find any real pictures of it, so if anyone has a picture or dimensions, it would be appreciated.


----------



## Nogoingback

Not sure if the back gear assembly will go in after the spindle or not.  I put mine in first.  You'll need to adjust the shifter rack after
it all goes together: here's the link to the procedure.  http://lathe.com/ll-group-archive/logan_lathe_back_gears.html

The tailstock lock consists of 3 parts: a stud that screws into the tailstock, the lock and the handle which acts as a nut.  I couldn't
get my stud out to measure the length, but on mine it projects .456" above the rim of the tailstock casting.

I bought gib screws from Logan.  What they sell now is a screw with a nylon insert that prevents it from turning rather than one with
a jam nut.  I like them since they're much less fussy to adjust, but of course the nylon part will wear out eventually.
Good idea to make your dials bigger: those tiny dials are the curse of Logan owners.







These are pics of my carriage lock nut, which for my lathe is p/n LA-174.  In the top pic you can see three raised "pads": the two
smaller ones bear on the bottom of the ways while the other longer one bears on the saddle and acts as a pivot point.  It's
height is slightly greater than the other two points.  If you get stuck finding one and want to make it, I could probably draw it up
for you as long as your part number is the same as mine.

Don't know about the banjo: my lathe has change gears so it's different.


----------



## bhusted

Thanks for the info!  The carriage lock nut seems simple enough.  It would probably be tricky to get an accurate measurement of the height difference between the pads that bear on the bed vs the back that contacts the saddle.  It's probably not a critical dimension and from the looks of yours it appears that the back side was not even machined, just cast.  Sort of like a toe clamp, the heel needs to be at or above the height of the material.  I'm assuming the thread is 5/16-18?

Your description of the tailstock stud makes me think that the thread in the handle is meant to do the clamping and the stud remains stationary in the tailstock.  The length dimension gives me a good starting place.  The more I think out this, it will require some trial and error to have the quill locked while the handle is in a certain position.  While it's not critical, I certainly don't want the handle pointed at the chuck when locked.

Reinstalling and adjusting the back gears looks like a real pain.  I'll probably just assemble the headstock without the backgears because I still need to repair the one chipped tooth.  I did see one reference to a person who cut a screwdriver slot in the back side of the eccentric shaft to aid in adjustment.  The gear shaft on my Atlas has a set screw hole for oiling, but I don't see anything on the Logan.  Even with an oil hole, I don't know how I'd access it without first removing the headstock.  The plunger on mine is missing the spring loaded lock, so there is another part to add to the list to make. 

Thanks again for the help.


----------



## bhusted

Not much time in the garage today, but I did make some progress.  I made a new locking piece for the back gear plunger.  This was a major pain to get the shape right and I really resent the person that removed or broke the original.  I still need to source a spring small enough for it before I put the pin back.  







I also managed to wire up and test the "new" motor that will power this thing when the time comes.  It's not OSHA approved yet, but everything works.  I need to wire up a reverse and power switch.  The motor is a 3/4 HP 1750 RPM DC motor I picked up on ebay.  The brushes look good and the bearings are quiet.  Control is a KBM-125.  No more changing belts for speed!


----------



## mattthemuppet2

wa5cab said:


> I don't know of an electrolyte better than and as safe as baking soda.  If there is still quite a bit of firmly adhered original paint, perhaps you could first brush on some cheap paint remover with the bed sitting on blocks in the empty container and then after a few days pour in the water and soda which should take care of the paint remover.



I read somewhere that washing soda is better than baking soda for electrolysis, though I honestly can't remember where I read that or why it is so. It was a long time ago. Either way, I've had alot of success with washing soda and usually find that the electrolysis will "blow" the paint off the surface, as well as removing rust. It was quite some time ago, but would be worth a shot.

Beautiful looking paint work there bhusted, this will look wonderful when you've finished.


----------



## wa5cab

I think that you are correct.  I didn't get up and go out in the shop and look at the box that I have but I just did.  And it is washing soda.  So it's the baking soda that doesn't work very well.


----------



## mattthemuppet2

I can't remember the chemistry behind it, but I think you need more baking soda in solution to get the same effect as washing soda.


----------



## bhusted

mattthemuppet2 said:


> I can't remember the chemistry behind it, but I think you need more baking soda in solution to get the same effect as washing soda.



Apparently "washing soda" is another name for sodium carbonate, which can be quite caustic.  Right now the bed is in the same condition it has been.  I'm putting off dealing with it for now while I keep busy with other parts of this project.

After a long day of working at the computer today I had a little time to get down to the garage and make some progress.  I decided that I'd make the spacer for the drive gear on the QCGB.  These went well enough until I realized the "simple" spacer needed a keyway.  I've never tried cutting a key on a lathe before today, but I think it went pretty well.  

I went from this abomination involving some washers and a pipe fitting? 





To this.  I don't really know the dimensions of the original so I just made it work.


----------



## wa5cab

The diameter isn't particularly critical so long as it is small enough.  But the length should be the same as the nominal hub length of all of your change gears.  I don't recall whether your lathe is a Change Gear or a QCGB version so the issue may never arise but if you needed to for example  put the 48T gear in the Front instead of the Back position, the spacer would need to correctly position the gear so that it lined up with the previous gear in the gear train.  The OD is typically something a little smaller than a 20T gear.  If you had had a change gear with a broken tooth, you could have made the spacer from it by turning the OD down until only the hub was left..


----------



## bhusted

Good.  I made the length the same as the thickness of the gear because that seemed to put the nut in the right spot.  My model is a QCGB version.  Fortunately no broken change gears, just one of the backgears with a missing tooth.


----------



## wa5cab

OK.  Sorry to hear about the back gear.


----------



## bhusted

I plan to try and braze a tooth on the backgear and see how it goes.  Moving to the DC motor with variable speed, I don't know that I'll be needing the backgears, but want to try and fix it anyway.  I figure it can't get worse by attempting the repair.  Keith Rucker has done a couple like this and it seems to work.

I did some more cleaning and painting tonight, but didn't have a lot of time to work.  One of the parts I did work on is the clutch for the power feed on the carriage.  This is MUCH more complex than the setup on my Atlas and I'm excited about the possibility of having a real power feed rather than just utilizing the half nuts. It's a good thing that I knew there were some springs in it because one of these almost got mistaken for swarf. Does anyone have a source for such small springs? Logan lists them for $10 each. The dimensions are 0.112" OD x 0.305 long with 0.020 wire. I didn't see anything on McMaster-Carr that fit the bill.


----------



## bhusted

In between online meetings I've gotten some more parts cleaned up.  I want to get the spindle reassembled soon and that meant working on the spindle pulley.  Most of this was just surface rust, but it does bring up a question.  There are 2 1/4-20 set screws on the pulley.  One of them is clearly marked for oil for when the backgears are engaged.  The second is the mystery.  Is this how the small gear is retained on the pulley? It doesn't seem like a good port for more oil as it's in the bearing surface.  If this is how the small gear is held on, should the other set screw be loctited in place?


----------



## Nogoingback

The screws on mine have never loosed up.  Not that it couldn't happen but I wouldn't bother.


----------



## bhusted

Are both screws meant to be oil ports?  If the other (not marked OIL), is there to retain the gear on the pulley, I though to add some loctite to prevent inadvertant removal for oil by myself or future owners.


----------



## HarryJM

bhusted said:


> I still need to source a spring small enough for it before I put the pin back.


I want to replace my spring and would like to know if you have found a replacement as mine is very weak.


----------



## bhusted

For the backgear spring latch, I've ordered several sizes of 3mm OD springs from ebay.  They were dirt cheap, but are riding the slow boat to get here, so it will be a little bit before I can report which seems to work well.


----------



## HarryJM

bhusted said:


> For the backgear spring latch, I've ordered several sizes of 3mm OD springs from ebay.  They were dirt cheap, but are riding the slow boat to get here, so it will be a little bit before I can report which seems to work well.


Thanks!


----------



## Nogoingback

Backgear latches and springs are also available from Logan.  Not as cheap of course.


----------



## wa5cab

And it is pretty unlikely that the originals were 3 mm diameter.  Given that 3 mm is 0.1181", they are probably 1/8" nominal diameter   Measure the wire diameter of the original and try to match it in a 1/8" diameter compression spring.  

On another subject, in an effort to see whether or not the manual that we have answered one of your earlier questions, I looked up the spindle pulley and small spindle gear in the Logan 800 Series manual that we have in Downloads.  According to the manual, the 800 Series all use a flat belt for the spindle belt.  What's the deal?

And on a related subject, another member made the comment that he had never loosened the screw marked "OIL" in his machine.  That screw should be removed and several squirts of SAE 20 ND applied either daily if the back gears are often used, before every back gear usage, or at least monthly.  

And as to the use of the second screw, according to the 800 Series manual (but see my second paragraph), the second screw should have all of the threads removed from the nose, which fits through a hole in the reduced diameter of the small spindle gear that fits into the pulley.


----------



## bhusted

Thanks for the info about the second set screw.  The hole for that screw has threads that go all the way through the bearing on mine.  Perhaps someone tapped it the rest of the way at some point in its life.  Before I install the pulley I think I'll run the screw all the way in to just before It gets to the bearing with some loctite.  I'm aware of oiling the backgear bearings on the spindle through the oil hole.  

Since the hole for the spring is 1/8" I needed a spring that is under that size and 3mm springs are plentiful and inexpensive.  Since I have no original to go from from for the backgear latch, I took a guess with a couple of different wire sizes and will see what "feels right".  It's not a critical spring rate, so I figured it couldn't hurt.  I'll report back with what I decide to use when they arrive.

From the manual I downloaded from VintageMachinery.org for the 825, it is meant to be mounted on a special cabinet with the motor down in the cabinet.  There are 2 v-belts that run to a jack-shaft with a flat belt to change speeds and then another v-belt to the motor.  Since I have none of that arrangement, I've elected to run a 3/4hp DC motor.  Hopefully it works out well.  I think the 800 model has a flatbelt on the spindle with the motor mounted behind.  

I have been trying to take advantage of some of the nice weather we have been getting and have not spent a lot of time working on the lathe.  I did accomplish another small repair today and finished reassembling the QCGB levers.  I never did get the spring handles off, so I had to paint around them.  





I also made a small repair to the scroll? for the halfnuts.  The connection from the shaft to the plate that causes the halfnuts to move was loose.  From the factory it seemed like the shaft had a partial D profile and had been peened into the hole on the plate.  Over time this connection had worked loose.  Probably fully functional, but I figured I should address it while I had things out.  Originally I planed to weld it, but was concerned about the distortion from the heat.  I chose to try a 'dutch key' I think it's called.  I drilled and tapped the intersection of the shaft and plate for 8-32 and installed a set screw.  The connection is solid now and if it works loose again, I'll just weld it.









Thanks again for all of your help.  I think the next big assebly will be the apron.  I've also got some machining to do for a carriage locking nut to make thanks to some drawings from Nogoingback.  I'm still looking for any information on the banjo support (LA-510-A) if anyone has a photo or basic dimensions.  I know the bolt through the slot is 7/16-14, but not sure on the length of the slot or the location of the pin that goes into the banjo.


----------



## wa5cab

OK.  Under drive certainly explains the pulleys.  The 800 Series manual that we have doesn't seem to have any photos of the underdrive version.  

On the motor question, I think that I would consider a DC gear motor in order to try to keep the motor RPM up.  The spindle pulley is already about as small as you can go so you can't run a smaller pulley on the motor.  TANSTAAFL certainly applies when trying to run a DC motor too slowly.  Besides possibly not having enough power at the lower end, you also may not have enough cooling.


----------



## bhusted

I managed to get the headstock reassembled.  The rear bearing was replaced and the main bearing was cleaned and re-lubed.  Getting the dust shields back into the casting was probably the worst part of this process, but I'm happy with the results.  The backgears are not installed because I still need to attempt a root canal on one of them.










I've also disassembeld the apron and in the process of cleaning and prepping for paint.  I've ordered some replacement bushings for the the traverse wheel shafts.  I'm a little surprised that there isn't an oiler for the bearings.  I'm thinking of drilling and installing a ball oiler on the casting where the hand wheel shaft goes.  What do others think?  Sacrilege or improvement?  I have some spare oilers because I had to order a pack of 10 for the one I needed to replace in the tailstock.


----------



## Nogoingback

The headstock is looking great!  Very nicely done.
I say put in a ball oiler if you like: my Model 200 has one in that position.  I seem to remember that Logan stopped putting them
in some locations on later models.


----------



## wa5cab

I can't see anything that it will hurt.  You will need to match-drill a small hole through the new bushing after installing it.  Which means that if you ever again replace the bushing, you will have to extract the ball oiler to drill that hole again.  And de-burr it again.


----------



## bhusted

There is actually a cavity between the two bushings where the handwheel goes, which is where I marked on the apron for adding an oiler.  So no need to modify the bushings or remove the oiler to replace the bushings.  I haven't done anything yet.  Just thinking about it.

I cleaned up the chuck that came with the Logan today.  It's in pretty bad shape, but it was so covered in gunk that I had hopes for it being nice underneath.  There's actually a Buck chuck underneath that mess.  The jaws are bell shaped and the scroll is pretty well worn out.  Oh well.  It's clean now.  Of course the hammer and chisel man had a go at the chuck as well.


----------



## bhusted

New bushings arrived, so that meant I had to get my act together and reassemble the apron.  First, here's the cavity between the two bushings on the traverse handwheel.  I did add a ball oiler.  These are the original bushings.






Once castings were painted and all of the gears cleaned, I replaced the bronze bushings and worked on reassembly.  Every threaded hole got cleaned out with a tap and then brake cleaner.  Before the new fastener went in I put in a couple of drops of oil.  I'm learning that there is a good chance the next person to take this apart will be me.  The last picture shows the oiler I added.  Hopefully this reduces the wear on the most frequently used shaft.  I need to pick up a few more bolts tomorrow and then seal the two halves together with some RTV.


----------



## wa5cab

Looks good.  I'd bet that if you managed to acquire the current Apron machining drawing that you would find a revision note showing either a general note saying something like "redrawn to match XYZ standards" or a note showing when the hole for the oiler was removed.


----------



## HarryJM

bhusted said:


>


Do you by any chance remember approximate dimensions of the LA-519 spring that goes under the LA-524 clutch retainer?


----------



## bhusted

HarryJM said:


> Do you by any chance remember approximate dimensions of the LA-519 spring that goes under the LA-524 clutch retainer?
> View attachment 323024



Interesting.  My feed clutch uses 2 small springs rather than one larger one.  See the diagram below.




The dimensions of the 2 small springs are 0.305" long x 0.112" diameter with .02 wire.  It's really difficult to measure the spring rate of these tiny springs, so I'm just going to try out a couple of different options when they arrive.  

Sorry for the lack of lathe updates.  I've been swamped with work and now the birth of my second son.  It will be a little bit before I get back to this project, but rest assured that I will finish it.


----------



## HarryJM

bhusted said:


> Interesting.  My feed clutch uses 2 small springs rather than one larger one.  See the diagram below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dimensions of the 2 small springs are 0.305" long x 0.112" diameter with .02 wire.  It's really difficult to measure the spring rate of these tiny springs, so I'm just going to try out a couple of different options when they arrive.
> 
> Sorry for the lack of lathe updates.  I've been swamped with work and now the birth of my second son.  It will be a little bit before I get back to this project, but rest assured that I will finish it.


Yea there are two different setups and ours are examples of the difference.
Thanks for the reply.


----------



## HarryJM

bhusted said:


> I'm still looking for any information on the banjo support (LA-510-A) if anyone has a photo or basic dimensions.  I know the bolt through the slot is 7/16-14, but not sure on the length of the slot or the location of the pin that goes into the banjo.


I'm also missing that bracket and according to this (https://www.practicalmachinist.com/vb/general/logan-820-stop-bracket-function-373139/) it looks like you may not necessarily need it see last entry 01272020 0645..


----------



## bhusted

HarryJM said:


> I'm also missing that bracket and according to this (https://www.practicalmachinist.com/vb/general/logan-820-stop-bracket-function-373139/) it looks like you may not necessarily need it see last entry 01272020 0645..



Thanks for posting.  I did come across that thread on PM while looking for more information about the bracket.  While it may not be entirely necessary, I think Logan added it for a reason and I'd like to make something to replace it.  The last thing I want is for the banjo to slip down and break a tooth on one of the gears.  Since I have the QCGB, once this is installed, the banjo will rarely need to be moved, and might as well be locked in place with it.

Have you been able to find any dimensions for it?  I've got some 1" x 1/2" flat stock that I think will work, but would prefer to have some dimensions for the length of the slot and location of the pin.


----------



## HarryJM

I do not have the dimensions although the thickness seems to be the only  significant dimension as the length and cut out have plenty of room for movement. You could always do a wood prototype that would be easier to play with until you nailed the dimensions.


----------



## bhusted

HarryJM said:


> I do not have the dimensions although the thickness seems to be the only  significant dimension as the length and cut out have plenty of room for movement. You could always do a wood prototype that would be easier to play with until you nailed the dimensions.



I had considered a prototype from wood and I may still do that.  I think the thickness is pretty arbitrary because the headstock doesn't clamp to the bed in a fixed location, the distance from the banjo to the headstock is a moving target.  The pin must simply be long enough to engage the banjo.  From the pictures I've looked at, I think the thickness is about 1/2".  

The reason I'd like to know the slot length and position relative to the pin is because the slot needs to be long enough to accommodate larger transposing gears and get close enough to the pin that smaller gears can still mesh.  I'm assuming that some engineer at Logan worked out the limits of what is necessary for these dimensions without making it too long or too weak.  I could probably work this out after everything is assembled but with my limited time to work on the lathe at the moment, I thought I'd see if I could get dimensions from anyone.


----------



## bhusted

Time for an update.  I haven't had a lot of time to work on the Logan, but have taken an hour here and there over the last few days to get started on the cross slide dial parts.  I did something similar to my Craftsman/Atlas lathe and been very happy with the result.  For the most part I just made small modifications to the design to fit the Logan.  You can see the thread on the previous dial upgrade here. This time around I'm making the dial 2.5" in diameter to give some more space between the marks. The counterbore is for a thrust bearing that will take up the axial load on the leadscrew.


----------



## bhusted

A while back I mentioned that one of the back gears was missing a tooth.  I decided to attempt the repair and am happy with the results.  Only time will tell if the repair holds up.  The first step was to clean and grind away the root of the old tooth and then fill the resulting cavity with brazing rod.






Next I turned the gear round again and trued up both faces.  This was very tricky to indicate.






To cut the new teeth, I ground a HSS tool blank that matched the tooth profile as best I could.  Then I setup the tool and locked the spindle.  The cutting takes place by advancing the tool a few thousandths and moving the carriage across.  Repeat the process a bunch of times and you're left with a new tooth.


----------



## AmericanMachinist

Great idea on how to cut the tooth without a mill and tooth cutter.  Thanks!


----------



## bhusted

AmericanMachinist said:


> Great idea on how to cut the tooth without a mill and tooth cutter.  Thanks!



Thanks.  It worked out well in this instance.  I don't think this method would be suitable for cutting more than one or two teeth.  I haven't installed the back gears yet, but rolling it over the mating gear seems smooth and no issues from the new tooth.

Thanks to Nogoingback for the drawings he made of the carriage lock.  I had a couple of hours tonight to make a new nut.  Certainly not a show piece, but it looks the part and fits.  I won't know if it works or not until I get the saddle/apron assembled and on the bed.


----------



## AmericanMachinist

What would your main concern be cutting multiples?  
Getting several adjacent teeth all spaced properly, or doing this process several tomes over?  

I have several gears all waiting on 1 tooth each to be repaired, this is a process i could go ahead and attempt with the equipment i have available.


----------



## bhusted

My concern would be just the amount of time required.  The process works fine once everything is setup.  I was able to index the teeth with consistency.  Since this is a form tool the engagement increases drastically as you get deeper.  I started out with a .005 cut, but when I got to the bottom, I was really only cutting .001-.002 at a time.  I forget what the total infeed amount was, but it was more than .100.


----------



## bhusted

Some of my springs came in, so I was able to assemble the feed clutch and button up the apron.  The springs I ordered are metric, but they are the closest I could easily find that were pretty inexpensive on ebay.  The specs I used are 3mm OD x 10mm length with a wire diameter of 0.5mm.  They are just a bit long, so I cut them down to 8mm and it works perfectly.  I think they are a bit too heavy of a spring rate for the back gear latch, so I have some others on their way that have a wire diameter of 0.25mm.  Here is a picture comparison to what I think is one of the original springs before I cut it down.  The new spring is on the left.





I also did some more work on the cross slide.  I pressed in the new oilite bearings and then installed the thrust bearings.  This was a little bit tricky because I had to slide them on the screw at the same time as the feed gear.  Extra care had to be taken in the design of the new holder to maintain the position of the feed gear.  You can see them between the gear and the holder here.





There is another set of thrust bearings on the crank side.  They fit into the counterbore and ride against a bushing that will carry the dial.  I have not made the dial yet.  The end play is taken up by threading the bushing against the thrust bearings and then locked in place with a jam nut.





This last part may be a bit controversial.  I drilled and tapped the end of the screw for a 4-40 screw to hold on the handwheel.  Because the dial will be much larger, I will lose a small amount of travel in the cross slide because the casting will run into the dial.  To get some of this travel back, I opted to move the dial and flange outward on the screw.  There would not be enough of the threaded portion remaining for a nut to retain the handwheel, so a screw from the end was the solution.  With the keyway in the shaft, couldn't go any larger on the size.  I also made a nice stainless washer to finish it off.


----------



## bhusted

Sorry for the delay in this project.  In between some other projects/maintenance on my other lathe, baby duty and getting ready for my work to start again, I haven't had a lot of time to work on the Logan.  Some progress has been made.  I've been putting off working on the bed and just decided to switch gears and put things together as is to see what else I'm missing.  I need to build a stand/bench for this machine so it will all have to come back apart and I will deal with the cleaning/painting the bed then.  To see if the DC motor was going to be up to the task of running the machine, I made a test stand from a 2x10.  This is just temporary before anyone gets worried that I'm not building a rigid base and leveling the lathe.  That will come later.






So far everything works.  The spindle is quiet and the motor seems to have plenty of power.  I stole the toolpost from my other lathe to do some test cuts to put a load on the motor.  I chucked up a piece of 1018 and made progressively deeper cuts.  I got all the way to .100 DOC with no bogging down and no chatter so I was pretty happy.  

I've realized that I'm missing the knob that holds the cover closed on the headstock, so I'll be prowling the web for that.  You can see my stand in for the knob.  My large dial conversion is almost finished.  I need to scribe the lines and stamp the numbers on the dials.  The other missing parts are a wrench for the tailstock and an oiler for the tailstock.  Eventually I'll make a proper square bolt for the carriage lock, but the nut that I made from the drawing provided by Nogoingback works well.  I'm also working on the electrical side to control direction and speed of the motor.


----------



## Nogoingback

The lathe is really coming along well.  Glad to hear th carriage lock worked out.  Instead of a square head bolt for the lock, you might consider a Kipp handle: you'll never have to reach for a wrench again.


----------



## bhusted

Thanks.  Call me strange, but I actually like the square head bolt and wrench for the carriage lock.  The fit between the wrench and bolt on my Atlas is snug enough that I just leave the wrench on the bolt but it is easily removed when it gets in the way of the tailstock.  Since I got a QCTP, the only use the wrench gets is the lock or moving the compound.


----------



## bhusted

I took a break from online video meetings today to work on the Logan for a little while.  I managed to make some good progress on the dial for the compound.  The only remaining task is to stamp the numbers.


----------



## AmericanMachinist

That looks great!  Looking forward to seeing how you set up to stamp the numbers.


----------



## Shiseiji

bhusted said:


> The counterbore is for a thrust bearing that will take up the axial load on the leadscrew.


Just looked at your Craftsman drawings, these are sweet! I've been working on a set-up like on my Clausing 8511. What steel did you use? The threads and finish are awesum!


----------



## bhusted

Shiseiji said:


> Just looked at your Craftsman drawings, these are sweet! I've been working on a set-up like on my Clausing 8511. What steel did you use? The threads and finish are awesum!
> 
> View attachment 335789



Thanks.  Once I have a chance, I'll post the drawings for the Logan if people are interested.  I used mostly the same design for the Logan as I did on the Atlas/Craftsman lathe.  The material I used is 1144 steel.  It is free machining and doesn't have the propensity to rust like 12L14.  The crossslide assembly from Clausing looks much more elaborate than the Logan, but I don't see a gear for power feed.


----------



## Shiseiji

I am! And thanks.  Noob, I tried 1018 and paid for my lesson  Didn't think to ask how you extended the shaft or I didn't read close enough.

No power on the 8511, 8513, and 8520. 8545 did, I can't recall if the 8530 did. 8511 was sold with a BP M-head and only a single LH handle. the 8513 was sold without a head. I saw an auction once for a couple of 8513 with what was perhaps a waterjet head. Seller reported the table showed zero wear. Seriously considered bidding, but too many projects . . .

Ron


----------



## bhusted

Shiseiji said:


> I am! And thanks.  Noob, I tried 1018 and paid for my lesson  Didn't think to ask how you extended the shaft or I didn't read close enough.



1018 should be fine, but the 1144 cuts nicer.  I didn't extend the shaft of the screw.  By removing the nut to hold the handle on I gained a little bit of the travel back that I lost.

I was able to scribe the dial for the cross-slide tonight.  200 little marks done.  I just need to stamp the numbers on the dials, but they will work for now.  I need to wrap up the electrical and build a proper stand for it.


----------



## Nogoingback

Those are good looking dials: nice job.  What tool did you use to scribe them?


----------



## bhusted

Thanks.  I'm pretty happy with how they turned out.  To scribe the marks I used a 60 degree threading tool turned on its side.  The indexing was done with a 200 tooth saw blade.  I didn't take any pictures of the process this time, but there are some in my thread on the Craftsman/Atlas forum.


----------



## Nogoingback

I finished a dial recently and did it the same way as you did, but yours came out better looking than mine.


----------



## bhusted

Nogoingback said:


> I finished a dial recently and did it the same way as you did, but yours came out better looking than mine.



What part didn't come out right?  There isn't really anything super fancy or special about my setup.


----------



## Nogoingback

My dial came out fine, but yours just looks a little nicer.  Your line width looks slightly narrower than mine.  What DOC 
did you use when cutting the lines.


----------



## bhusted

Wait for me to screw up stamping the numbers before we compare dials...

For the DOC I went .010 and then turned a few thousandths off the OD to clean up the burrs from scribing.  Did you use carbide or HSS?


----------



## Nogoingback

bhusted said:


> Wait for me to screw up stamping the numbers before we compare dials...
> 
> For the DOC I went .010 and then turned a few thousandths off the OD to clean up the burrs from scribing.  Did you use carbide or HSS?



I used carbide (because I had them), but next time I would use HSS.  I broke the tip on the carbide tool backing out after a pass, so after that I had to retract the tool each time.

I can see why your lines look so good with the clean up pass you made.  I used  a  very fine foam backed sanding
pad that I use to polish up parts.  They create a better suface finish, but they don't really remove any material to speak of.


----------



## bhusted

Nogoingback said:


> I used carbide (because I had them), but next time I would use HSS.  I broke the tip on the carbide tool backing out after a pass, so after that I had to retract the tool each time.
> 
> I can see why your lines look so good with the clean up pass you made.  I used  a  very fine foam backed sanding
> pad that I use to polish up parts.  They create a better suface finish, but they don't really remove any material to speak of.



I used a carbide tool and haven't had any trouble with chipping the insert making dials like these.  Don't think I've indexed the insert since doing the original dial, so it's done 3 dials, and several threading jobs.  Retracting the tool probably makes it difficult to get a consistant marking depth.  Once I set the depth, I lock the cross-slide by tightening down on one of the gib screws.  I made a quick little arbor to mount the dial on for my cleanup of the OD and the back face.  I'd recommend trying that.


----------



## Nogoingback

Retracting the tool wasn't my preferred option, but actually I chipped the tips twice.  They were cemented carbide tools. At that point,
retracting the tool seemed like the best option since I was running out of tools.  I actually think the marking depth worked out pretty
well, but of course the next time will go better.  This was the first time I had done this job.  I'll plan on an OD cleanup pass next time.


----------



## AmericanMachinist

The dials look really great!   

The cleanup pass is smart.  I wonder if the lines would be further accentuated by applying cold blue prior to the cleanup pass.

I look forward to seeing the number stamping process.


----------



## eeler1

Just checking in, after several months.  Progress is looking good.  Always a tough choice, buy new and start making chips, or get an old machine and restore it.   One plus for doing all this work is that you now know that machine intimately and how all these components work.


----------



## bhusted

Not a lot of progress to report, but I've been still working on the Logan on and off as my new work schedule will allow.  One thing that I did find while setting it up on the test stand is that I have an issue with the toolpost.  Since this is my second lathe, it has always been my intent to repair it and then decide to sell one.  I mounted an import AXA toolpost on the Logan and found that I could not bring the tool low enough to get it on center.  The picture below is taken with the toolholder resting on top of the compound.  For the turning tools, the difference is 0.075-0.080, but the grooving tool is more than 0.125" too high.







There are a couple of options as I see it, but wanted to hear from others on the best course of action.  

Move to 3/8" tools.  Most of the insert tooling I have is 1/2" so I'd have to replace it
Mill off some of the bottom of the tool shank to bring it low enough to be on center.
Mill off some of the top or bottom of the compound.  
Replace the compond with a solid block at the proper height.  I don't cut a lot of tapers where I need the compound, but I do prefer the method of using the compound when threading.
Anything else I'm not thinking of?
Thanks for any help or wisdom.


----------



## Nogoingback

10" Logans can be like that.  You've pretty much covered the possibilities, though it might be possible to find tool holders that position the tool a bit lower.  For mine, I decided to make a solid plinth that's about .100" lower than the compound and use 3/8" tools when the compound is required. 
I use the plinth most of the time.  The other advantage of the plinth is that there's greater rigidity, so less chatter and better DOC's.  I also
like working around it: no handle on the compound to bump into just before I make my last pass...  
The only option on your list I would avoid is milling the top of the compound.  There isn't a huge amount of material there
to begin with and you could cause it to break when tightening the nut.


----------



## bhusted

Thanks for your thoughts.  Always appreciated.  I've been reading about lots of people removing the compound to increase rigidity on these smaller lathes.  I took a break from online meetings and pulled the compound to make some measurements.  

The first thing I noticed/remembered is what a pain it is to pull the compound off.  With the t-bolts captive and the nuts in the slots on the compound, there is a dance of loosening the nuts back and forth to be able to lift the compound free.  By contrast, the compound on my Atlas/Craftsman is removed by simply loosening the 2 bolts and lifting it off of the dovetail plug.  I think South Bend did theirs this way too.  I guess my thinking here is that if I take the compound off, I'm not putting it back on unless there is a really good reason.  

The flange on the bottom of the compound that mounts to the cross slide is 5/16 thick, so removing material here seems like a no go.  This would all but eliminate the degree markings on the flange of the compound.  My compound is 2.135" tall, so I'd need a replacement that is about 2" tall.  What material did you use for your plinth?  Are all of the Logan compounds the same style mounting?  Is there any variation on the height of the compound between models?


----------



## ThinWoodsman

Check out the XL-sized AXA toolholders. They have a larger slot for the toolbit, and that may lower the bottom of the slot sufficiently for you to use 1/2" tooling. My understanding is that generally, people use 3/8" tooling in the AXA toolposts.

As for fixing what you've got, mill some metal off the base of the toolholder. You can always replace the toolholder if you screw it up too badly to fix.


----------



## Nogoingback

bhusted said:


> Thanks for your thoughts.  Always appreciated.  I've been reading about lots of people removing the compound to increase rigidity on these smaller lathes.  I took a break from online meetings and pulled the compound to make some measurements.
> 
> The first thing I noticed/remembered is what a pain it is to pull the compound off.  With the t-bolts captive and the nuts in the slots on the compound, there is a dance of loosening the nuts back and forth to be able to lift the compound free.  By contrast, the compound on my Atlas/Craftsman is removed by simply loosening the 2 bolts and lifting it off of the dovetail plug.  I think South Bend did theirs this way too.  I guess my thinking here is that if I take the compound off, I'm not putting it back on unless there is a really good reason.
> 
> The flange on the bottom of the compound that mounts to the cross slide is 5/16 thick, so removing material here seems like a no go.  This would all but eliminate the degree markings on the flange of the compound.  My compound is 2.135" tall, so I'd need a replacement that is about 2" tall.  What material did you use for your plinth?  Are all of the Logan compounds the same style mounting?  Is there any variation on the height of the compound between models?



Yes, I know what you mean about getting the nuts in/out on the compound.  I loosen them as far as they will go and then spin them off with the tip of a small screwdriver while lifting up on the compound.

I can't say if all the 10" Logans have the same compound, but mine measures the same as yours, (Model 200).
I think it's better to make a plinth than machine material off parts of the lathe, though Thinwoodsman's suggestions 
are easier.  I've found that the plinth was worth the effort however.  I made mine from 1144, which is becoming my
favorite go to material.  Compared with something like 1018, it's nicer to machine with better surface finish, and a bit stronger if that matters.


----------



## wa5cab

The first 3969 Atlas 10" and a similar number of Craftsman 12" had the same type of captive screws for swiveling the compound.  Then Atlas, as you said, changed to the inverted cone or Pintle type compound swivel.  It may not be as stiff as the captive bolt type but there are no limits on the angle that the compound swivel can be set to.  I've never understood why none of the Atlas competitors ever changed. 



ThinWoodsman said:


> Check out the XL-sized AXA toolholders. They have a larger slot for the toolbit, and that may lower the bottom of the slot sufficiently for you to use 1/2" tooling. My understanding is that generally, people use 3/8" tooling in the AXA tool posts.



The primary purpose  of the XLA tool holders was or is to allow someone  to run 1/2" cutter holders.  But those along with the normal 3/8 cutter holders might be another solution to the height problem. And allow you to keep the compound.


----------



## mattthemuppet2

I would just mill the material out of the bottom of the tool holder slot to get things on center. They're not super hard and a carbide end mill should have any problems.


----------



## bhusted

Thanks for the feedback.  I appreciate all of the responses.  After looking at it again and hearing your thoughts, I've decided I really want to keep the compound in place for now.  I'm going to take the route of milling .08 off the bottom of the tool shanks.  This way I won't be making any permanant changes to the lathe and can still retain most of the rigidity that the 1/2" shank tools offer.  I'll probably pick up a couple of the XL tool holders to try them out too.


----------



## bhusted

I spent a little more time working on the Logan last night.  While I've got the lathe setup on my test stand, I want to get everything functional and I have not addressed the back gears.  A while back I brazed and cut a new tooth for the large gear, but never assembled the set in the headstock.  The eccentric shaft is in good shape, but the bushings the gear shaft rides on are toast.  They were oblong and very scarred.  I'll also note, that looking at the parts, I'm not the first one to have taken these apart and is on par with other "work" performed by previous owners of the machine. 

To remove the old bushings, I had to bore them out.  The inside of the shaft has a very poor finish and measures at .927.  The closest off the shelf bushing size seems to be 15/16 at .9375, but that would be a very tight fit.  I'm wondering if the shaft used to have an ID of 7/8 and the bushings wore so badly that they did a poor job of boring it out to fit larger bushings?  I also found it strange that the bushing bores intersected with the woodruff key slots.  The eccentric shaft measures .001-.0015 undersized from 3/4.  Does anyone know the size the bushings are supposed to be?  There also doesn't seem to be a provision for oiling these bushings.  I know that the back gear doesn't get used all the time, but it seems there should be some provision for lubrication to prevent the issues I'm seeing.


----------



## bhusted

The backgears have been set aside for a little bit while I wait for replacement oilite bearings to arrive.  I'll have to bore the tube to accept the oversized bearings and then I plan to add a ball oiler to the cavity between the 2 bearings.  I have an Eagle oiler that has a long enough spout that I think can reach down into the headstock and add some oil when the backgears going to be used.  

Another issue has been the gear train to the QCGB.  The idle gears that select forward or reverse feed also had worn out bearings.  One had .012 and the other had .020 of play.  They had also been bored and replaced by someone in the past.  Anything over a slow spindle speed would create a loud rattle when feed was engaged.  Instead of boring these out as someone did in the past, I opted to install sealed ball bearings.  Perhaps a bit controversial, but now they should outlast the rest of the machine.  The bearings are R10-2RS.














The next up in the gear train is the 60T gear that links the stud gear to the QCGB.  I bought a steel replacement 60T gear for a few bucks on eBay and plan to install some similar ball bearings in it too.  The original keyed, threaded bronze bushing is also worn out.


----------



## mattthemuppet2

as long as they work who cares? 2 less things to oil too! I put sealed bearings in both the spindle pulley and the back gear on my Atlas 618, partly to cut down on the amount of oil getting everywhere in the headstock.


----------



## wa5cab

I have four comments, other than that the ball bearings look good, but....

I am not familiar with this machine but if it has a multi-step conical pulley on the spindle and a pin of some sort that locks that pulley to the bull gear for direct drive and the pin is pulled out and the back gears engaged for back gear, the the lubrication note should be to also lubricate the pulley bushings every time that you lubricate the back gear bearings or bushings.  The second is that the lubrication frequency should be monthly PLUS whenever the back gears are used, not just whenever the back gears are used.

The third is that whenever you switch from bushings to ball bearings on the Tumbler, the bolts or pins must lock the inner races of the ball bearings to the tumbler.  Else Murphy's Law generally guarantees that the bearing inner race will tend to spin on the bolt/pin instead of the outer race spinning on the inner race.  And prematurely wear out both bearings and bolts/pins.  One way to fix it is to insert an inner race shim under the head that is thick enough to lock up the bolt/pin and inner race.

The fourth is that the photo above shows what appears to be a compound gear, one of which is presumably the 60T gear that you mentioned.  You cannot simply replace the keyed bushing with two ball bearings because what you will end up with are two independent idlers.  If the input is to the larger gear and the output from the smaller gear, the lead screw will not turn under load.  There are several ways to fix this including installing new but otherwise original parts.


----------



## bhusted

wa5cab said:


> I have four comments, other than that the ball bearings look good, but....
> 
> I am not familiar with this machine but if it has a multi-step conical pulley on the spindle and a pin of some sort that locks that pulley to the bull gear for direct drive and the pin is pulled out and the back gears engaged for back gear, the the lubrication note should be to also lubricate the pulley bushings every time that you lubricate the back gear bearings or bushings.  The second is that the lubrication frequency should be monthly PLUS whenever the back gears are used, not just whenever the back gears are used.
> 
> The third is that whenever you switch from bushings to ball bearings on the Tumbler, the bolts or pins must lock the inner races of the ball bearings to the tumbler.  Else Murphy's Law generally guarantees that the bearing inner race will tend to spin on the bolt/pin instead of the outer race spinning on the inner race.  And prematurely wear out both bearings and bolts/pins.  One way to fix it is to insert an inner race shim under the head that is thick enough to lock up the bolt/pin and inner race.
> 
> The fourth is that the photo above shows what appears to be a compound gear, one of which is presumably the 60T gear that you mentioned.  You cannot simply replace the keyed bushing with two ball bearings because what you will end up with are two independent idlers.  If the input is to the larger gear and the output from the smaller gear, the lead screw will not turn under load.  There are several ways to fix this including installing new but otherwise original parts.



I appreciate your thoughts.  On the backgears, there was no provision for lubricating the backgear shaft originally from Logan, so The fact that there will be a oil port there means that they will get oiled much more frequently than never.  I am well aware of the lubrication schedule on the other points on the machine and tend to check/oil every point each time I use it.  I'm still in the setup/testing phase of getting this Logan up and running, so it doesn't get used much yet.  

For the bearings I used, you can see that there is a step in the back of the gear.  This is because the gear is wider than the bearing.  The idler shafts were pretty beaten up from previous use and all of the slop in the bushings.  I sized the ID of the bearing to fit the tumbler shaft and then machined a .145" long spacer to take up the extra width of the gear + .01" so that when tightened, the spacer traps the inner race on the tumbler shaft.  The result is the idler gears being smooth and quiet.

While the gear may look like a compound gear, the 48T gear on the outside is just in "storage" and doesn't actually touch anything.  I think Logan did it this way so that if you wanted the top row of course pitch thread or extreme feeds, you could swap the 48T gear in place of the 24T stud gear.  The 60T gear in the back is what drives the QCGB from the spindle.  I didn't want to modify these, so I found another 60T gear 16DP 14.5 degree pressure angle on eBay for cheap and will bore that to fit some more ball bearings.  For less than $30 I'll have smooth running gears.  The replacement bushing from Logan is $95 alone.


----------



## wa5cab

OK.


----------



## bhusted

Just to be clear about the spacer I made for the bearings that goes on the back side of the assembly.  Here is a picture of the setup taken apart.


----------



## wa5cab

OK.


----------



## bhusted

Another update on this Logan project.  I picked up a cheap spur gear from ebay matching the specs (16 DP and 14.5 deg pressure angle) of the 60 tooth gear that links the stud gear to the input of the QCGB.  Originally this gear was setup for a 3/4" keyed shaft, but I just bored both sides to press in 1/2" ID 1-1/8" OD ball bearings.  There is a sleeve to take up the space between the two inner races and a new shaft for them to fit onto.  I could have re-used the original t-nut, but I made the shaft for a 3/8 bolt and the Logan part is for a 5/16 bolt.  




The new setup is much quieter and smoother as the original threaded, keyed bearing was badly worn.  One less place to have to worry about oiling and the sealed bearing should outlast the rest of the machine.  Here it is installed.  





Still plenty of fixes and improvements to make on the machine, but it feels like good progress.  Another part that I've been working on now that I have it setup for testing is the motor.  I love being able to adjust speed with the DC motor and not have to change belts, but I've decided that I want to add a jackshaft to decrease the max spindle speed and increase power.  Those parts will hopefully be arriving soon and I can do some more testing.  

Another part that I've been thinking about what to do is for the tailstock.  While it is functional, there is a fair bit of wear and pitting from rust on the tailstock ram.  The morse taper socket in the ram is also badly worn.  I cleaned it up with a tapered reamer and it does hold tools, but it is not pretty. Most of the wear/pitting is on the tool end of the ram and measures anywhere between -.003 and -.005.  At the screw end of the ram, it is nearly perfectly on size at <-.001.  The bore of the tailstock also has some wear in it, again concentrated at the tool end of the bore as much as +.003.  I can only reach in so far with telescoping gauges, but the wear in the bore seems to be concentrated to the first 2" of the bore.  

I've been hunting for a better condition ram in the usual places, but have not come across any.  Of course I could buy a new one from Logan for $270, but I'm looking at my prospects of making one.  Has anyone else done something like this before?  I've been reading threads on PM and other places about making a tailstock ram.  Since the size is a common 1-1/8", I was thinking of getting a 6" section of ground shafting with the keyway already cut in it as a starting point.  Just this would cut the clearance in the bore by more than half.  I'd love to hear more from anyone that has done this before.


----------



## bhusted

Sorry for the lack of updates here.  I disassembled the headstock again yesterday to install the repaired back gears.  The oilite bushings the backgears ran on were heavily worn and the bores in the shaft were also oversized, so someone had been in there before.  I cleaned up the bores, pressed in new bushings and installed a ball oiler about 2/3 of the way down the shaft so that I can add oil to the space between the bushings at either end.  It's a long way down there but the neck on my oil can is long enough that I can reach. Getting the timing of the plunger right is a real pain, but I managed to get that all back together and working.  






I haven't done any cuts with it, but I'm happy with how it runs.  As loud as I expected with open, straight cut spur gears.  A little bit of sticky grease on the gear teeth quieted it down a little bit.  The brazed on tooth seems to work fine.  The spring loaded lock on the plunger needs to be reworked.  It holds the gears engaged, but needs to be longer as it runs noticeably better if I hold the plunger out a little more when running.


----------



## Shiseiji

bhusted said:


> Thanks for your thoughts.  Always appreciated.  I've been reading about lots of people removing the compound to increase rigidity on these smaller lathes.  I took a break from online meetings and pulled the compound to make some measurements.
> 
> The first thing I noticed/remembered is what a pain it is to pull the compound off.  With the t-bolts captive and the nuts in the slots on the compound, there is a dance of loosening the nuts back and forth to be able to lift the compound free.  By contrast, the compound on my Atlas/Craftsman is removed by simply loosening the 2 bolts and lifting it off of the dovetail plug.  I think South Bend did theirs this way too.  I guess my thinking here is that if I take the compound off, I'm not putting it back on unless there is a really good reason.
> 
> The flange on the bottom of the compound that mounts to the cross slide is 5/16 thick, so removing material here seems like a no go.  This would all but eliminate the degree markings on the flange of the compound.  My compound is 2.135" tall, so I'd need a replacement that is about 2" tall.  What material did you use for your plinth?  Are all of the Logan compounds the same style mounting?  Is there any variation on the height of the compound between models?


FYI: Logan switched to a pintle at S/N 50843 mid 1952. 1953 is when the 800 series changed to vee belts. I've had both and much prefer the pintle. The serial numbers are posted at Lathe.com but you need a parts manual for the compound information. The pre S/N 50843 parts drawings are side view engineering drawings.


----------



## wa5cab

It appears that all of the US makers of 9" to 12" lathes (Atlas [& Sears], Clausing, Logan [& Wards] and South Bend) started off with the captive bolt and nut style compound swivel and changed to the inverted cone or Pintle style in the mid 1930's.  Some made the change coincident with a model number change and some just recorded the serial number.


----------



## bhusted

Time for an update.  I have not had a lot of time to work in the shop, but have made some progress on saving this Logan.  When I recieved the lathe, the tailstock ram was in very poor condition.  It was pitted from rust worn, and the tapered socket was scared.  A careful inspection of the parts showed that the majority of the wear was in the ram and that the bore of the casting was still round and true to size.

No suitable replacements were found on ebay and the new part from Logan was $$$.  I came across a thread on Practical Machinist where a gentleman had extended reach of his tailstock by making a new screw and rear cap for the tailstock.  I figured if I was going to make a new ram, I might as well make some other improvements at the same time.  No permanent alterations of the tailstock were made in case it didn't work.  

The replacement ram was made from 1-1/8 cylindrially ground drill rod.  While probably not the best material for the part, it gave me a starting point where I knew the OD would be a very good fit for the bore of the casting.  Indeed the sliding fit of the new "ram" was excellent after a thoughough cleaning of the bore.  The keyway was done with the milling attachment on my Atlas/Craftsman and the MT2 socket was roughed out on the Logan and finished with a hand reamer.  






The step in aft end of the ram is to make room for the new cap that screws into the end of the tailstock where the handwheel is.  I was originally intending to make the new screw, but sourcing a 7/16-10 LH acme tap for the ram was too much.  Instead I ordered a length of 1/2-10 LH acme rod that came with 2 brass nuts.  I counterbored the end of the ram and pressed the brass nut in place.  










The rear cap needed to be redesigned to accommodate the added length of the ram, so I also decided to add thrust bearings, an oilite bushing and a dial to the assembly.






This is with the ram fully extended.  I have almost 3.5" of travel now, so all of this gained a little over an inch of travel for the ram.  While I don't do a lot of deep drilling, I find it annoying to reposition the tailstock to drill deeper than 2".






Here is the full assembly.  I'm not sure that I love the look of the rear cap, but I'll use it and see how I like it.  I need clean up the jam nuts and cut the woodruff key slot (tool is on order) in the end of the screw.  The dial is reposition able for drilling to depth and made just like the other dials for the cross slide and compound.  Someday I'll work on stamping the numbers on all of these...  I don't know if I will try my hand at scribing the lines for a scale on the ram itself.


----------



## mattthemuppet2

very very nice! Making a new tail stock quill is no trivial task. I'm about 1/2 way through doing the same tail stock extension mod on my SB heavy 9, just need to thread the housing extension. Like you I've added thrust bearings to both ends, should make it nice'n'smooth. In future if you need a tool ask around on here - Ulmadoc helped me out a great deal with the loan of 1/2-20 LH acme tap and a gift of some matching all thread.


----------



## bhusted

Thanks.  I was a little surprised to see that the original tailstock didn't even include a bushing for the screw.  I guess it just gets much less use than the cross slide and didn't matter.  The thrust bearings and bushing make it very smooth.  There is still plenty to do on this machine, but I feel like it's already come a long way.


----------



## brino

bhusted said:


> There is still plenty to do on this machine, but I feel like it's already come a long way.



..........and so have you! (Not meant in a demeaning way at all!   )

Beautiful work!
Every project we do teaches us things to do and things to avoid.
You seem to have many of the former.

I sometimes hesitate to attack such projects myself for fear the the lathe is unusable for the next two years!

-brino


----------



## bhusted

Not a lot of progress on the Logan lately.  We moved over the summer and been focused on getting the house and shop stuff in order.  A while back I did find a Logan?? cross slide that was much longer and included t-slots.  It was different from the lever actuated ones I had seen because it had a provision for the cross slide nut.  With a much longer contact with the carriage, eliminating the compound, and a new nut for the screw, it is very rigid.  I machined some t-nuts to fit the slots and a riser to mount the toolpost today.  So far I'm impressed with the change.  







My plan is to leave the other cross slide assembled and slide it on when I need to use it, just swapping over the toolpost.  Now that I'm getting back to making chips, I also plan to revisit the cross slide dial assembly I made a while back.  I want to extend it so I can gain about an inch of additional travel.  Plans are in the works and pictures will be forthcoming.


----------

