# Logan/mw 04tlc-701a Purchase



## 47convertible

Hi All,
Just purchased this 10 inch Montgomery Ward/Logan 701A. At least that's what it says on the attached plate.
Serial number is a bit confusing to me as there are three separate numbers on the right hand end of the bed.
One is 69. There is an inch or so of space and the  1065P. Below that the numers 9898.  I'm assuming the 1065P is the serial and that this is a 1947 or 48 year lathe.  There is the letter W stamped in between the ways on the rear right hand of the bed.

Cast into the rear side of the bed is a raised diamond shape with letters that look like BHF (very hard to read) and above that a cast in date 1-19-48 (could possibly be 1-19-46 as the last numeral is also very hard to read.

The lathe has some interesting features: New-All quick change threading attachment, a turret carriage stop with four positions, some kind of tool holder on the back side of the cross slide. It has what looks to be a cut off tool in it. It has a 3-jaw chuck mounted. A larger 4-jaw chuck that might be too large for this lathe and a face plate which also looks to be too large were in the box of 'extras'. Tool holder is a four tool of the type often seen and the original lantern style tool holder is in the box. A dozen or so extra gears that probably were original and before the New-All quick change threading box. A set of extra jaws for the 3-jaw chuck. A milling attachment that looks like a Craftsman/Atlas was also in the parts box.

The ways look good and the carriage, when tightened some cranks with fairly even pressure along the length of the ways. Hand cross feed works OK as does the compound feed.

The motor and motor carrier/countershaft(?) and pulley assembly was disassembled when I looked at the lathe. There is an older 1/3 hp 220V motor that looks as oily as the rest of the lathe so may have been on it at some point. And there is a newer 1/2 hp frigidare 1750 rpm single phase motor with the parts.

A curious hole and tool on the front side of the headstock. The tool and hole are located so when the tool is pushed in it locks the large gear in the headstock. I am presuming this is to enable removal of chuck???.
I haven't examined everything closely but have not located the hole or the insert to engage the back gear. Maybe I haven't looked close enough or the lever at the left side of the headstock does that function? I'm an obvious newbie to the machine tool world so a whole lot more I don't know than do know. For example while I've figured out some of the controls on the carriage some remain a bit of a mystery particularly since its not powered at this point.




I've disassembled everything I can and brought home parts to clean up and check out. The table it sits on and the bed and headstock with carriage are still at the previous owner's place. I will move those this Sat. when I can recruit some young and stronger-than-me help. Table appears to be a very well done home-made unit with an oil/coolant reservoir built in and a couple of belt driven oil pumps and some piping were included in the parts boxes.

I'm going to take my time cleaning up and assembling to make sure what I got is worth continuing to fix up and maybe purchase some better things for, but don't want to get the cart ahead of the horse here.

Any help from those of you with similar lathes as to whether I'm accurately describing what I purchased would be greatly appreciated. I'd like to know if this is a regular lathe with some options or a thrown-together hodge-podge of lathe parts.  I really do want it to be a good old lathe than can be brought back to life and make chips but if that can't be done at some reasonable cost the obvious exit strategy is to part it out.

I am currently enrolled in a night class on machine shop at a local community college and am on my 3rd quarter of the class so what I've been learning about lathe and other machine operations will come in very handy.

I don't think the financial risk is much as I'm in this $300. at this point. No doubt if it proves to be a decent running lathe the costs for tooling and an  endless array of other tempting things will skyrocket the costs.
Jerry
ps. on the copy of this post I viewed the picture of the whole lathe appears out of place. Don't know how that happened. Maybe one of the moderators can fix?


----------



## brino

Nice find.



47convertible said:


> The ways look good and the carriage, when tightened some cranks with fairly even pressure along the length of the ways. Hand cross feed works OK as does the compound feed.



It sounds like there is still life left in it.
How are the headstock bearings?

Wow that rear parting tool post looks like a very rigid box design. I bet that would run with little to no chatter.
I have never seen a turret carriage stop like that....I like it!

I would like to see some close-up pictures of the headstock.....and of course more pictures as you progress.

Thanks for posting!

-brino


----------



## 47convertible

Thanks for  your comments. Headstock bearings seem tight and no typical bearing noise when turned by hand but might be different under power. I think I read somewhere that all Logan lathes had caged roller bearings and so no babbit or bronze bushings. I hope so.  Re. the rear parting tool post. I am a newbie so putting tools on the backside in a different holder seems contrary to me even if running in reverse. I'd like to learn the logic behind that.  So much I don't know.  I will post additional photos of headstock when I get all the parts home in a week or so.  My first lathe so my head is up a bit in the clouds about all of this. Cleaning and reassembly and getting it going may bring me back to the ground.
Jerry


----------



## Rex Walters

My guess is that, like mine, this is a bit of a franken-lathe — previous owner(s) may have done substantial modifications and improvements.

That cross-slide and rear attachment are pretty interesting. I could be wrong, but I suspect they aren't original with the lathe. The cross slide looks like a combo cross-slide/boring-table type design a'la Myford/GHT/Metal Lathe Accessories. That looks like some sort of combo milling attachment / transfer block / rear-toolpost in the rear (see this one from Andy Lofquist). That type of long cross slide is *extremely* useful. Hopefully the rest of the lathe is in good shape.

You might be interested in my thread on making a replacement cross-slide that looks something like yours. Mine was built from a casting from Andy Lofquist at Metal Lathe Accessories.

It looks like a previous owner filled one of the tee-slots on the cross-slide with plaster or something — I wonder why?

The bits and bobs on the front of the headstock are also interesting. The top lever (above the tag) is to engage the back gears. The whirly-gig looking thing appears to be a carriage stop (very useful for repeated operations). I can't see it clearly, but if the lever next to the carriage-stop engages/locks the bull gear it could be just a simple lock to remove the chuck as you suspect (though most people just use the back gear lever to do that). It might be an indexing mechanism, though: the bull gear has 72 teeth, so you can index in 5 degree increments. Check to see if the bull gear has marks for 30/45/90 degree increments.

The hand wheel on the compound doesn't look original, either, and it looks enormous in the photo. Does it interfere with the cross-slide hand wheel?

Scott Logan still sells a manual and parts for the Wards 700 series lathes if you need them.

Very interesting find. If it works at all, $300 was a great deal. 

Please keep us informed as you get the lathe in working order! I'm very curious about this lathe (I own a Wards 2130 series lathe which is a little different from yours).

Enjoy!
-- 
Rex


----------



## Rex Walters

47convertible said:


> I am a newbie so putting tools on the backside in a different holder seems contrary to me even if running in reverse.



You don't want to run a lathe with a screw-on chuck in reverse (the chuck can — will — unscrew itself and go flying).

With a rear-mount toolpost, you mount the tool (usually a cut-off tool)  upside down with the cutting edge on the bottom, and you still run the lathe normally (spinning counter-clockwise if you face left). I've not finished building my rear-mount toolpost yet (sooo many projects stacked up) but I'm told that a rear-mount cutoff tool actually works significantly better than a front mounted one for several reasons:

1. More rigidity: no compound or quick-change toolpost interfaces and a more massive, less-adjustable toolpost.

2. With the cutting edge on the bottom, the tool should be pushed away from the cut rather than into the cut if it binds (a rear mounted tool should be at or just slightly _above _centerline).

3. Gravity should help chips fall into the chip tray rather than getting caught in the groove.

Regards,
-- 
Rex


----------



## Rex Walters

One other thing: after puzzling it out a bit more, I think both of our lathes may have been built in 1947 (I previously thought mine was circa 1941, but now that I re-examine Logan's confusing table of serial numbers I see that the serial numbers restarted in 1947 with an "A" suffix — mine is serial number 3124A).

You should join the Logan Lathe mailing list and ask them about your lathe, especially the "1065P" stamp above the 9898. Scott Logan may be able to tell you a lot more about its provenance.

From the messed up baseline, I think the "69" was probably stamped by a previous owner (likely when he acquired it in 1969) rather than at the factory. The serial number on my 1947 model 2130 is in the lower right (where yours reads 9898, mine reads 3124A). The 1065P at the upper right on yours mystifies me, though. 

If I'm reading the table correctly, yours could have been built in 1940 if it is s/n 1065 (though the "P" is confusing). If it's serial number 9898 as I suspect, it was likely built in January of 1947 (before 1/24/47). 

Older than me, but younger than my parents. <laugh>
-- 
Rex


----------



## wa5cab

One minor comment - the extra set of jaws for the 3-jaw could be the outside jaw set.  4-jaw jaws are usually reversible.  So only one set comes with the chuck.  The jaws for 3-jaw chucks with one-piece jaws aren't reversible, so the chucks always come with two sets of jaws, one for gripping parts with a diameter up to about one-half the chuck diameter and one for gripping larger parts.


----------



## eeler1

That is one highly customized lathe.  I guess the manual from Logan will help some, but just don't expect things match up.  And my, what large hand wheels, looks like larger graduated collars maybe?  If so, and properly installed, thats a good thing.  Plus a frigidaire motor, how cool is that?  (pun intended).

None of which means it won't do good work for you.   Might even be kinda fun figuring out the changes and why they were made, so actually a great project for a starter lathe.  You will get to know it inside and out before you're done.  Ive spent $300 in worse ways.

It has the quick change gearbox, but the plain apron, meaning that left/right power feed is still from the half nuts/lead screw and there is no clutch to slip if you crash it.  so be careful with the power feeds.

Have fun and keep the pictures coming.


----------



## 47convertible

eeler1 said:


> That is one highly customized lathe.  I guess the manual from Logan will help some, but just don't expect things match up.  And my, what large hand wheels, looks like larger graduated collars maybe?  If so, and properly installed, thats a good thing.  Plus a frigidaire motor, how cool is that?  (pun intended).
> 
> Have fun and keep the pictures coming.


___________________________________________________________________

Boy, am I getting a great schooling on the lathe I purchased. It is great to get these responses. I know a whole lot more about it than I did a few hours ago when I posted. What fun! Thanks to you all.
Jerry


----------



## 47convertible

Rex Walters said:


> My guess is that, like mine, this is a bit of a franken-lathe — previous owner(s) may have done substantial modifications and improvements.
> ______________________________________________________________
> 
> It appears your thoughts about my lathe being a "Frankenlathe" were spot on. I wrote an email to Logan Actuator to see if they could provide more information. Reply was quick and writer should get a prize for brevity. I asked about the same things you were curious about Rex. Their response is in bold print:
> 
> Proper identification:
> 
> *04TLC-701A*
> 
> To begin with here are numbers and letters on the far right end of
> the bed:
> Which is the serial number 1065P or 9898? I'm thinking 9898 since
> the casting on the reverse side of the bed indicates a January 1946
> or 48 date. If 9898 is the serial what is the 1065P stamping and the
> 69 stamping?
> *
> Can't be 100% certain, but it appears the correct serial number is 9898.*
> 
> Do the initials inside the diamond shape have any significance as far
> as identification?
> Also there is a W stamped on the far right end of the bed between the
> ways on the far side. What does that denote?
> *
> No idea. Probably casting or inspection marks.*
> 
> There are apparently a number of options or changes made to this
> lathe over the years including the New-All quick change threading
> gear box and the small hole and part that fits into it that locks
> the large gear when it is pushed in. I'm not sure what this is about
> and no other Logan/MW lathe I've seen has this. Since the lathe came
> with a milling accessory (lower right of photo below) it might have some function in indexing. I'd really like to know
> about this part and function.
> 
> *This is not a Logan product, so no idea.*
> 
> There is also a turret with four carriage stops which I understand to
> have been a Logan accessory.
> 
> *Could be from Logan or another manufacturer.*
> 
> Finally the cross feed does not look like a typical Logan based on my
> few observations of Logan lathes and comments from others.
> Is the cross feed an option? One person who looked at this photo said it looked like a Myford. At any
> rate the tool holder on the backside is something I've never seen in
> my very limited experience. I'm not able to identify the round post with tapped hole in lower center
> of picture as to original or not and function it is intended to
> serve.
> 
> *Again, not a Logan product.*
> 
> Thanks for any assistance you can provide.


----------



## 47convertible

Just a bit more on the different cross slide with T slots on my 701A.  I found this: http://www.statecollegecentral.com/metallathe/S-4382.html . Someone was making a T-slot cross slide casting for SB and Logan. Don't know if they're still doing this.
There are links to follow that seem to indicate these type of cross slides were better known some years back before affordable mills were available.
Perhaps this is old/known information to the veterans on this site. If so, please excuse a newbie for bringing it up again.


----------



## brino

That's the same supplier that Rex included a link to in post #4 above.
No problem for double posting, I often feel like I'm going around in circles when I am quickly trying to research something new.

Have you seen the manuals/photos posted over here:

Logan Engineering:
http://vintagemachinery.org/mfgIndex/detail.aspx?id=2093&tab=3

Montgomery Ward and Co.:
http://vintagemachinery.org/mfgIndex/detail.aspx?id=555&tab=3

Montgomery Ward | Powr-Kraft:
http://vintagemachinery.org/mfgIndex/detail.aspx?id=657&tab=3

Each of those pages linked above have tabs that give great stuff like company history, "Publication Reprints" and "Photo Index".
You need to poke around a bit to see all the great stuff.
I did NOT see any just like yours, but I also did NOT look at everything.

You can also get to the list of manufacturers from their main page here:
http://vintagemachinery.org/home.aspx

Keep having fun!
-brino


----------



## Rex Walters

47convertible said:


> Perhaps this is old/known information to the veterans on this site. If so, please excuse a newbie for bringing it up again.



I'm much closer to a newbie than a veteran myself, but I tried to provide _precisely_ this type of information in comment #4.

Please forgive the direct questions, but did you not follow the links in that comment, not realize there _were _links, or was I somehow otherwise unclear? I'm not trying to be obnoxious. I'm sincerely trying to point out relevant helpful information in my comments but it sometimes seems my effort goes to waste. It took me a more than a moment to annotate that comment and some of the information it links to (in particular my thread on machining that precise casting!). It's frustrating to see you write that you "found this" after I tried pretty hard to point you right at it! <laugh>

Thanks for posting your reply from Logan Actuators. It makes me very happy to see a commercial business reply at all to a letter from a hobbyist (tersely or not). Fewer and fewer companies seem willing to do so. I've seen people give Logan grief for their "exorbitant" prices and surly support of hobbyists, but clearly its a labor of love that they provide those services at all — there just isn't enough of a market to make much of a business providing those parts, manuals, and answering questions.

Logan also thinks that the s/n is 9898. That 1065P is a real mystery, though (the poor alignment of the 69 convinces me that this was stamped by a previous owner). I have this vague memory (probably incorrect) of reading somewhere that when a QCGB was added as a customized option at the factory to a lathe without one they sometimes added an additional s/n. I could be completely off base, but I wonder if the 1065P is to indicate that it was modified with a new leadscrew and QCGB? (Adding a QCGB to the lathe mandates replacing the leadscrew, I believe.)

Regards,
-- 
Rex


----------



## Rex Walters

brino said:


> That's the same supplier that Rex included a link to in post #4 above.



Heh. Thanks — I'm not talking to myself! <laugh>

Our replies crossed in the ether.
-- 
Rex


----------



## 47convertible

Rex Walters said:


> I'm much closer to a newbie than a veteran myself, but I tried to provide _precisely_ this type of information in comment #4.
> 
> Please forgive the direct questions, but did you not follow the links in that comment, not realize there _were _links, or was I somehow otherwise unclear? I'm not trying to be obnoxious. I'm sincerely trying to point out relevant helpful information in my comments but it sometimes seems my effort goes to waste. It took me a more than a moment to annotate that comment and some of the information it links to (in particular my thread on machining that precise casting!). It's frustrating to see you write that you "found this" after I tried pretty hard to point you right at it! <laugh>
> 
> Thanks for posting your reply from Logan Actuators. It makes me very happy to see a commercial business reply at all to a letter from a hobbyist (tersely or not). Fewer and fewer companies seem willing to do so. I've seen people give Logan grief for their "exorbitant" prices and surly support of hobbyists, but clearly its a labor of love that they provide those services at all — there just isn't enough of a market to make much of a business providing those parts, manuals, and answering questions.
> 
> Logan also thinks that the s/n is 9898. That 1065P is a real mystery, though (the poor alignment of the 69 convinces me that this was stamped by a previous owner). I have this vague memory (probably incorrect) of reading somewhere that when a QCGB was added as a customized option at the factory to a lathe without one they sometimes added an additional s/n. I could be completely off base, but I wonder if the 1065P is to indicate that it was modified with a new leadscrew and QCGB? (Adding a QCGB to the lathe mandates replacing the leadscrew, I believe.)
> 
> Regards,
> --
> Rex


I am really appreciative of your and other's comments and helpfulness. I did read your reply and went very briefly to the link you provided yesterday but did not get a chance to check it out as I had a bunch of stuff on the plate. I had good intentions of going back and checking it out. This morning I was doing some further Googling and through another source came across the same link without recognizing it as such, but since I had more time while waiting for an appt to show up, I did click on some of the listed items on the site and that is where my comment came from. It did not 'click' with me that this was the same link you provided.
So I feel properly chastised and am issuing my mea culpa to any and all who felt slighted and hope to move on with good will among all.
Jerry


----------



## Rex Walters

47convertible said:


> So I feel properly chastised and am issuing my mea culpa to any and all who felt slighted and hope to move on with good will among all.



Heh. There was no slight and no apology is required. I was just wondering if you just didn't see the links for some reason (on my browser the colors are close enough that it's hard to tell they even _are _links). Glad you got there in the end. 

I don't think yours is exactly the same casting because it doesn't have any ears (although I milled mine off in the end as well). You may find interesting my adventures in machining a casting to end up with a cross-slide very similar to what you already own. Do you know anything about the previous owners? I wonder which of them made that cross-slide.

You might also be interested in the book "The Model Engineers Workshop Manual" by George H. Thomas (GHT). The projects in that book go a long way toward explaining why those tee-slots in the rear of the cross-slide are so useful. I'm really curious why one of your tee slots is filled in with plaster or cement. 

Have fun.
-- 
Rex


----------



## 47convertible

Rex Walters said:


> Heh. There was no slight and no apology is required. I was just wondering if you just didn't see the links for some reason (on my browser the colors are close enough that it's hard to tell they even _are _links). Glad you got there in the end.
> 
> I don't think yours is exactly the same casting because it doesn't have any ears (although I milled mine off in the end as well). You may find interesting my adventures in machining a casting to end up with a cross-slide very similar to what you already own. Do you know anything about the previous owners? I wonder which of them made that cross-slide.
> 
> You might also be interested in the book "The Model Engineers Workshop Manual" by George H. Thomas (GHT). The projects in that book go a long way toward explaining why those tee-slots in the rear of the cross-slide are so useful. I'm really curious why one of your tee slots is filled in with plaster or cement.
> 
> Have fun.
> --
> Rex



Regarding the previous owners: Very little is known. I found out about the lathe on Portland CL about 3 months ago. It was listed for $750 with a warning it was in a basement and would require four strong guys to take it up five steps to the outside. There was very little other information and a couple of poor photos that gave no clue to a neophyte like myself. I decided not to inquire. A few weeks ago it popped up again, this time at $550 OBO so I decided to go look.

The gentleman who owned the lathe had passed away about 9 years ago just 4 or 5 days after he got the lathe. So its likely I got it just as he got it. His widow was selling it through a family friend who was my contact. Neither the widow or her friend had any background information. He could only tell me it was a 10 inch MW Lathe. The photo I posted is exactly as I saw it and set out all that I know. I wish there was more information from previous owner(s) but I've gotten more on this site than from the seller. It will just have to remain a mystery as to the origin of the cross-slide and why one of the tee slots is filled in. Perhaps someone here on HM can provide a rationale for filling in the tee slot. I am taking an evening machine shop class at a local community college so will take some of the photos next time I go and show them to the instructor and see if he can hazard a guess regarding the modifications.  

BTW the evening machine shop class is the buy of the century if you are a senior and auditing (no college credits earned). $25.90 for ten 3-hour evening classes which are almost entirely hands-on. That includes a limited amount of metal for projects. Once mandatory student projects are done and  you demonstrate some proficiency you are welcome to bring projects from home to work on. Only 8 in the class and four of us are seniors. The three other guys are all retired machinists so a lot of help is available in addition to the instructor. I'm lovin' it.


----------



## wa5cab

A name found in several of the 40's/50's vintage catalogs was "Turret Cross Slide".  The slide by default was sold with a front 4-way turret tool holder and a rear fixed single tool holder.  They were usually offered as part of the means for converting an engine lathe to a turret lathe (the other part being a tailstock turret).  I have both of them for a 12" Atlas.  

You can also mount a QCTP in place of the 4-way turret.  The chief disadvantage of most of the OEM ones was that there was no provision for mounting a compound assembly.  The two (I only recall two but there may be more) homebrew projects I've seen here and in the Atlas Forum both had provision for mounting the compound on the front end of the longer and heavier cross slide.

And not to be confused with boring tables that were sold by some OEM's or third parties.


----------



## brino

47convertible said:


> BTW the evening machine shop class is the buy of the century if you are a senior and auditing (no college credits earned). $25.90 for ten 3-hour evening classes which are almost entirely hands-on. That includes a limited amount of metal for projects. Once mandatory student projects are done and you demonstrate some proficiency you are welcome to bring projects from home to work on. Only 8 in the class and four of us are seniors. The three other guys are all retired machinists so a lot of help is available in addition to the instructor. I'm lovin' it.



Wow that sounds fantastic!
I'm glad you found that wonderful avenue for machine time and "face time" with experienced folks. Soak it in!

I am also glad you found this site. Keep the fire burning and please keep posting!

By the way, you should be able to pick up some metal for free. I always find people giving away old printers and scanners; they have a bunch of steel rods.

-brino


----------



## 47convertible

Thank you brino for the encouragement. There are Community Colleges (2 year institutions) in lots of towns. When I wanted to learn more about welding I lived in Portland and went to a Saturday welding classes in one of their Community Colleges. The course was designed for hobby level welding skills so it was mostly hands-on. It was inexpensive and added to my then meager welding skills.  Now I'm trying to add to my skills by learning to operate machine tools--mostly lathe and mill. Both the welding and this are unbelievably inexpensive. I wish I had done this years ago. One of the side benefits has been that I was able to narrow down what I was looking for in a lathe for my shop at home.  I would never have learned to sharpen a drill bit properly or shape my own HSS cutting/forming tools without the classes. I would encourage anyone to find their nearest Community College and talk to the vocational education people there to see if there are classes in machine shop that fit  your needs and schedule. I'm a believer in their mission which fills a real void in technical education whether for employment or for hobby.


----------



## 47convertible

So Saturday and bringing home the big pieces can't come soon enough. Kinda like a kid waiting for Christmas. A lot of cleaning up of misc. parts done today and lots more to do. After Saturday I can tackle the table on which the lathe mounts. Its really grungy. Today was almost enough to make a grown man cry when I dumped some of the cardboard boxes of misc. stuff. Everything rusty. See photos. Lots of gears I'm guessing are surplus now with the quick change gear box for threading. Surprisingly the rust came off these fairly well. I didn't get to the two dozen or so taps except one 5/8x11 that turned out to be a Greenfield when rust and crud came off.  The photo of all those laid out on my welding table should be titled "Table of Shame." It is beyond me that good tools just get chunked into moisture attracting cardboard boxes and left for months or years.
Lathe chuck is a Cushman 6. Was this standard on the 10" Logan/MW? It does have a set of outside (?) jaws that cleaned up pretty well considering they were coated in rust on every side earlier in the day.
The custom tool holder that mounts in a T on the cross slide cleaned up nicely too and a 9-72 stamp was found on it. An interesting home made tool holder for a cut off tool was heavily coated in rust but cleaned up good also. It looks rough even cleaned up. I'm guessing on this too that it is meant to hold a cut off tool but I don't have a clue how it mounted. Any educated guesses?
Enough sharing for one night. I'm having a lot of fun and its keeping me busy while I'm waiting for the paint shop to get started on the 47 Olds convertible project.
Jerry


----------



## wa5cab

Jerry,

The cutoff tool holder was almost certainly intended for mounting on the back end of a turret cross slide, with the cutoff bar inverted.  A number of contractors made these slides in the 40's and 50's.  I am referring to the rectangular block with 9 72 stamped on the front.


----------



## Rex Walters

47convertible said:


> I'm guessing on this too that it is meant to hold a cut off tool but I don't have a clue how it mounted. Any educated guesses?



Here's an example of what Robert is talking about:




I can't recommend GHT's book more highly — even if you don't build anything in it, it's worth the read. Every page is chock full of useful little nuggets of machining wisdom.

The item on the left of the photo is a rear-mount cutoff toolpost like Robert mentioned. I plan to build one of these eventually, but haven't quite gotten started yet. It looks like your photo (lathe-extras-028-jpg) shows a similar but slightly different design (the cutter is mounted upside down in both cases, but yours doesn't hold the cutter at an angle as GHT's design does).

Yours also appears to require a holder for the parting tool (your photo lathe-extras-015.jpg). GHT's design has an integral parting tool on both sides with a rotating turret (for 1/16" and 3/32" blades). GHT's design with an integral parting tool seems superior to my estimation (with no real experience of either) since it should be more rigid without a separate holder. When I build mine, I plan to include an integral parting tool on the left, and to make a dovetail wedge for QCTP holders on the right rather than a rotating turret (I don't need different width parting tools).

For what it's worth, the finger plate shown in the middle is also a great little project. Very useful for holding fiddly little bits as you are machining them (milling/drilling/filing operations more than lathe work). The retracting top-slide for screw cutting shown on the right is a much bigger project than I'm ready to attempt, but I'd love to have one. Plans for all three (and much more) are contained in the book.

Regards,
-- 
Rex


----------



## 47convertible

Rex Walters said:


> Here's an example of what Robert is talking about:
> 
> View attachment 112194
> 
> 
> I can't recommend GHT's book more highly — even if you don't build anything in it, it's worth the read. Every page is chock full of useful little nuggets of machining wisdom.
> 
> The item on the left of the photo is a rear-mount cutoff toolpost like Robert mentioned. I plan to build one of these eventually, but haven't quite gotten started yet. It looks like your photo (lathe-extras-028-jpg) shows a similar but slightly different design (the cutter is mounted upside down in both cases, but yours doesn't hold the cutter at an angle as GHT's design does).
> 
> Yours also appears to require a holder for the parting tool (your photo lathe-extras-015.jpg). GHT's design has an integral parting tool on both sides with a rotating turret (for 1/16" and 3/32" blades). GHT's design with an integral parting tool seems superior to my estimation (with no real experience of either) since it should be more rigid without a separate holder. When I build mine, I plan to include an integral parting tool on the left, and to make a dovetail wedge for QCTP holders on the right rather than a rotating turret (I don't need different width parting tools).
> 
> For what it's worth, the finger plate shown in the middle is also a great little project. Very useful for holding fiddly little bits as you are machining them (milling/drilling/filing operations more than lathe work). The retracting top-slide for screw cutting shown on the right is a much bigger project than I'm ready to attempt, but I'd love to have one. Plans for all three (and much more) are contained in the book.
> 
> Regards,
> --
> Rex



Hi Rex, I will be adding to the library as I get deeper into this and will keep your recommendation in mind. 
The tool holder, at least I think its a cut off tool holder, that I had a question about is the one in the attached thumbnail. The other is the rectangular one that mounts in the T slot.
Also, my Logan Operators Instructions and Parts List came in the mail today. Almost as good as a Christmas catalog.
Jerry


----------



## wa5cab

Actually, this is what I was talking about.

.


----------



## Rex Walters

Hey, cool! From his photo's that's exactly what Jerry (47Converible) has. Who makes that? Is it an Atlas part that someone has fitted to a Logan?

Also, what on earth does "YAJOD" mean?

Nice find.

[Edit: I called Jerry "Chris" accidentally. Corrected. Apologies.]


----------



## Rex Walters

Also, I note that Robert's image shows the parting tool mounted directly rather than in a separate holder. Not sure why the original owner of Chris's lathe made a separate holder.


----------



## wa5cab

Rex,

The image (which I should have either bumped up the physical size of or the dpi of but this was the first time I'd done one of these) was taken from a 1952 Atlas catalog.  However, I have seen very similar assemblies in some Logan and other catalogs.  On the Atlas version, the front T-slot in the cross slide is parallel to the cross feed screw (you can see part of it).  The rear slot is parallel to the spindle axis.  The block that Jerry has a photo of is the same way.  However, the 9 72 stamped into the front of the block is not an Atlas part number.  If it were, it would have a hyphen between the 9 and the 7.  Plus part number 9-72 is a Reverse Gear Driver Stud, which is a shouldered stud and gear axle in the FWD-REV gearbox for the 9" and early 10".  And also, what is not visible in the photo that I attached above is that the Atlas rear single tool mounting block has a rocker at the bottom of the cutter mounting slot like the one visible on the 4-way turret.  It's visible because I know where to look.  The photo resolution is poor enough that the rest of you may or may not be able to recognize it.  But it is the same type rocker typically found at the bottom of the slot in a lantern style tool post.  Anyway, the purpose of the rocker is to allow adjustment of the cutter height to get it on center, even though it may not be horizontal.  Or to put it another way, the slot for the parting tool on the back side of the Atlas rear block is like the four in the turret, not like the one in the block that Jerry has.

YAJOD is some sort of Atlas stock keeping code.  Their catalogs up at least through the 50's are full of five-letter codes like that one.  No explanation has ever surfaced and the people at Clausing today don't know.


----------



## Rex Walters

Interesting. 

To my surprise, Logan did offer a couple replacement double tool cross-slides. I went back and look at the back pages of my Logan/Wards catalog and found this:




Neither is what Jerry has, obviously.

Logan used adjustable wedges rather than a rocker design to adjust tool height. It's interesting to me that neither can mount the standard compound in the front (as Jerry's can, as well as the one I built).

I haven't spent much time with lantern/rocker style tool posts, and no time at all with wedges. I wonder which is more fiddly to use in practice? 

Regards,
-- 
Rex


----------



## wa5cab

Yes, those are two that I recall seeing.  I've seen another one somewhere that is more like the Atlas version.  Atlas also offered theirs in a lever operated variant.  But they used the cross feed screw as a push-rod.  I haven't seen a commercial one that allows mounting the compound at the front.


----------



## eeler1

Here's a couple of pics of mine, i think its original Logan.  The adjustable shims, or parallels, were long gone when I got it, so the PO used a variety of materials for height, tool bits, feeler guage leafs, etc.  Mine is missing the front cover, but was otherwise intact.


----------



## 47convertible

Rex Walters said:


> Also, I note that Robert's image shows the parting tool mounted directly rather than in a separate holder. Not sure why the original owner of Chris's lathe made a separate holder.



47 Convertible is Jerry Brown.  I wish my mother had named me Chris instead of Jerry but Jerry it is.


Rex Walters said:


> Interesting.
> 
> To my surprise, Logan did offer a couple replacement double tool cross-slides. I went back and look at the back pages of my Logan/Wards catalog and found this:
> 
> View attachment 112212
> 
> 
> Neither is what Jerry has, obviously.
> 
> Logan used adjustable wedges rather than a rocker design to adjust tool height. It's interesting to me that neither can mount the standard compound in the front (as Jerry's can, as well as the one I built).
> 
> I haven't spent much time with lantern/rocker style tool posts, and no time at all with wedges. I wonder which is more fiddly to use in practice?
> 
> Regards,
> --
> Rex



Lathe finally came home today. Turned out to be a fairly easy move out of that basement and into the back of the pickup. Table and Lathe were already separated. Nothing like having a much younger, larger and stronger friend to help. Some photos posted below. The cross slide bare of the compound reveals itself. Someone had asked about looking into the headstock so a few photos there but don't know if I got the specific area of interest there. Did look closely enough to see the pulleys are for V belts not flat as I thought and the brake band (?) is the leather lined steel strap adjacent to pulleys.

I started cleaning the table and still likely have a couple of hours on that before it will be paintable. I'm not a stickler for original colors and the headstock wouldn't appear to be original color anyway so thought to paint table a medium gray but want a durable product not prone to chipping or flaking. Any guidance there?
Jerry


----------



## Rex Walters

I'm allergic to painting (not to paint, just to painting) so I can't help you there. 

It's nice to get a better view of the thing now that you've got it home.

It looks like a previous owner added several oiling caps to the quick-change gear box (very good idea — though from the photo it doesn't appear to have been oiled any time too recently!). Mine has no easy way to get oil on the gears.

The previous photo made me think one of the tee slots was filled with plaster or something, but it looks like it was actually a piece of delrin? I guess it's just to keep it from filling with chips when it's not being used (or possibly as additional support for something that needed to span the gap).

After I browsed through the 8 new photos you posted, the forum photo viewer thingy jumped me to your photo of all the rusty cutters and such. <shudder> It hurt seeing that photo the first time, much less twice!

Sorry for messing your name up. I'm starting to develop symptoms from that three-letter disease the doctor warned me about ("a," "g," "e").
-- 
Ray Jay Johnson


----------



## brino

Jerry,

That is a very good looking lathe you have there.
A bit of clean-up and it should serve you well for many years.

That table looks HEAVY! At first glance I wondered if the middle had dipped under the weight of the lathe, but the mounting plates for it are right at the legs......so it must be just for getting the coolant back to the drain. A feature, not a bug. 

If you find any surprises, be sure to post back here. Obviously many folks are familiar with this lathe and  interested in your project.

-brino


----------



## 47convertible

I am also glad you found this site. Keep the fire burning and please keep posting!
By the way, you should be able to pick up some metal for free. I always find people giving away old printers and scanners; they have a bunch of steel rods.
-brino[/QUOTE]
__________________________________________________________
Nothing very exciting but a lot satisfying in cleaning up and painting.  So far the table, headstock cover and gear train cover have had the treatment. Tailstock is next and then carriage assembly. The latter brings up a question.  1. Is there a manual on disassembly and adjustment that goes into more detail than the Operators Instruction and Parts List from Logan and if so how do I get it?  2. When it comes to removal of the carriage assembly does everything come off as a unit?  Also, can I just take off the far end mount that holds the lead screw and crank the carriage to the end and remove it? Anything in the apron that's going to come apart once its free of the bed?  Thanks for your continued help as I learn my way around this machine.


----------



## eeler1

Remove bracket at right end of the lead screw, then run the carriage down there, support the lead screw with something so it's not just hanging, and gently pull carriage off the tail stock end.  Sometimes helps to loosen apron from carriage but not necessary.


----------



## 47convertible

eeler1 said:


> Remove bracket at right end of the lead screw, then run the carriage down there, support the lead screw with something so it's not just hanging, and gently pull carriage off the tail stock end.  Sometimes helps to loosen apron from carriage but not necessary.


Thanks for replying and providing the information.
ps. Back on October 5th you observed:* "It has the quick change gearbox, but the plain apron, meaning that left/right power feed is still from the half nuts/lead screw and there is no clutch to slip if you crash it. so be careful with the power feeds."*
Could you explain more about this please? Was there an option on the 10 inch MW/Logan lathes for the apron with a clutch? Seems from your observation there must have been and the clutch type was a safety feature to prevent damage? How would a newbie like myself tell the difference? 

Jerry


----------



## eeler1

Compare this apron;







To this one;






Also do some searching
here;

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/lathe-list/conversations/messages

Lots of people have asked about it and done the conversion to an automatic apron with a clutch, iirc, involves some spacing issues, aprons may not be direct swap out

Oh, and here's another that might be helpful;


----------



## 47convertible

Many thanks eeler1. Just the sort of information I was hoping to get. I did sign up for the Yahoo group.
Jerry


----------



## wawoodman

*Also, what on earth does "YAJOD" mean?*

I've seen this in turn of the (last) century tool catalogues. It might be a wire code, from the days when telegraph messages were priced by the word. A salesman could send in an entire order, with these. A forerunner of the UPC.


----------



## wa5cab

Mike,

OK.  That now makes sense.  It's the "cable code".  Seems to have disappeared from the catalogs sometime between 1952 and 1959.


----------



## Jester966

eeler1 said:


> Lots of people have asked about it and done the conversion to an automatic apron with a clutch, iirc, involves some spacing issues, aprons may not be direct



If the lathe has a QCGB but not an automatic apron, then it must be a retrofit and the gearbox mounting surface must have been milled down.  Read the following information from Scott Logan:

http://lathe.com/ll-group-archive/adapting_a_qc_gearbox.html

If this is the case, maybe you can add a spacer behind the gearbox in order to accommodate an automatic apron.  You'd have to space out the tailstock end leadscrew mount as well.


----------



## 47convertible

Thanks Jester. From Scott's information my serial #9898 must be a retro-fit particularly since the QCGB is  New-All instead of a Logan gear box. I don't know if New-All had the same dimensions as the Logan QCGB.  Next task is probably to measure the lead screw location as mentioned in Scott's information and see if it is in the original or a modified location. In the meantime disassembly, cleaning, painting and reassembly keeps going on. At some point it seems like it would be a benefit to have the clutch type apron.
Jerry


----------



## wa5cab

Actually, you can add a slip clutch to the lead screw.  My Atlas 3996 has one.  If your existing apron isn't worn out, that would probably be less expensive and work just as well.  And you wouldn't have to concern yourself about the horizontal offset question for both the gearbox and the right leadscrew bearing.

As to whether or not the New-All gear box was modified so that it would mate up with the leadscrew running through the standard apron, I would guess probably not.  They made gearboxes to fit a lot of lathes that didn't come from the factory with QCGB's (like the Atlas 10" and 12" made before 1947).  If I had been in charge of New-All, I would certainly have questioned whether it made good business sense to compete directly with OEM gear boxes.  I don't know a whole lot about non-Atlas lathes but I'm assuming that your particular model Logan wasn't originally available from the factory with a QCGB which produced a niche for New-All.


----------



## 47convertible

Robert, Thanks for the information.
I have to say at the start I was warned I had something of a "Frankenlathe" and it was likely not 100% Montgomery Ward 04TLC-701A which Logan shows as a 10 inch lathe. 
Per  your comments, I think Logan may have been similar to Atlas with respect to either not offering a QCGB for the 701 at the time mine was built or it was built without one and adapted later and so a previous owner got the New-All QCGB.  I haven't been able to run down much information on either New-All or Western Aircraft Tool Co. but then I'm really a newbie at machine tool research.

Looking in the operators manual and parts book I got from Logan Actuator I see a number of things different from factory. Others have pointed out some and some I've found that don't appear 'stock' on my MW 701  A: 
1. Pulleys:The manual only shows 3 pulleys for flat belts but mine definitely has 4 V belt pulleys each on the counter shaft and the main shaft. 
2. Brake on spindle: it has some kind of lined brake shoe that acts on a flat wheel next to the smallest pulley. I added a photo of the braking device. 
3.  2.25x8 spindle thread: In addition while taking it apart for inspection, cleaning and reassembly I measured the thread on the spindle and it is about 2.25 rather than the 1.5" that the MW   701A apparently came with.
4. I was able to mount a 10 inch 4 jaw chuck that came with the purchase as an extra. It has some, but not much, clearance from the ways. (see photo of mounted 10" chuck) Its very heavy so I didn't leave it there any longer than it took to make a couple of photos. The chuck that was mounted when I bought the lathe was a 6 in. 3-jaw.
5. Casting modified:  The backside of the headstock casting seems to have been cut way down to allow for belt travel on the 4 V pulleys. It looks like a flame cut so I'm guessing it wasn't a Logan job (photo). Question is why and how were the headstock innards changed out or modified?
6. Spindle Inner Diameter: The inner diameter of the spindle is a bit over 1 inch after the taper rather than the 25/32 called for in the specs. That's a little over .2" larger. Factory or bored out by user?
7.  Bull Gear Pin different? I notice the bull gear pin is described as being pulled out as part of engaging the back gear. I looked and found the pin but noticed there was a small lever next to it that acted to disengage the pin when it was pushed toward the gear. Maybe they were all like this? (see photo of pin and lever) or maybe the bull gear is from an 800 model which Scott Logan mentions as having a lever to actuate the bull gear pin.
8. The different cross slide with two T slots has been mentioned earlier. I did find the factory cross slide in among a couple of old motors (see photo of factory cross slide).
9. Just to review this is the 04TLC-701A tag mounted on the headstock when I bought the machine (photo). I'm guessing that is what it started out as in 1947.

Others who are familiar with Logan may have some logical explanation for these things. This may be 'old hat' to them.  For me its a big adventure and a lot of fun learning as I go. Thanks to all who have been generous with their knowledge and nudged me along. I do try to do at least some basic research before I pop up here and ask questions.
Jerry


----------



## 47convertible

Update. I spent some time at the Yahoo Logan owners site and got more helpful information about the MW/Logan 701A. The consensus is that the headstock is not Logan. It seems to be a shop-made box of flat metal plate welded together and carefully machined to take bearings and spindle of some unknown brand. It is not a cast piece. So far no one has identified what the spindle and assembly is with 4 V belt pulleys, a different bull gear than Logan and the manual brake device. The gear train for feed seems to be Logan and maybe the back gears as its a Logan rack assembly. Well, it is what it is and I will make the most of it until it either works or doesn't. I'm learning a lot as I go along. A good project to stimulate an old guy's brain.

Last night I got the headstock and bed back up on the table. Saddle and apron are next on the clean up and paint and then all can be mounted. I've yet to figure out the drive hookup with its four corresponding V belt pulleys on the countershaft and just how I'm going to mount it and hang a motor on there.  Attached photo is where I left things last night. Looking good but kinda bare.
Jerry


----------



## brino

Hi Jerry,



47convertible said:


> The consensus is that the headstock is not Logan. It seems to be a shop-made box of flat metal plate welded together and carefully machined to take bearings and spindle of some unknown brand. It is not a cast piece.



Looking at your photos I was almost going to suggest that, but I didn't have a good enough view of the entire headstock.



47convertible said:


> Well, it is what it is and I will make the most of it until it either works or doesn't. I'm learning a lot as I go along. A good project to stimulate an old guy's brain.



Much depends on what you expect out of it. I believe that as long as that headstock was made fairly accurately(axis parallel to bed), then all your efforts will be rewarded with a very usable lathe. Frankenlathe will live again. 

-brino


----------



## 47convertible

A couple of notes. I'm encouraged by the progress and have all the parts back on except the countershaft piece which I photographed in what seemed the most logical position but it seems like its never been mounted to this particular table as nothing really lines up to anything like a mount. Like the headstock and QCGB the countershaft with pulleys looks like it might be shop made. Can anyone identify it as being Logan or any other make? Maybe I have it mocked up in the wrong position?

Also brino, per  your comment about the headstock axis parallel to the bed, I don't know if this qualifies as a test but I did mount a couple of dead centers that I believe to be good and put them nose to nose. To my eyes it looked like the points matched. A longer dead center in the chuck might be a more accurate indication as the chuck mounted dead center was only about 3 inches.

Also in the photo of the countershaft mock up, can anyone identify the make of turret tool post? A 3/8 tool inserted in it is a full .25 too high to center on the workpiece and there seems no way to adjust this except shims which would make it worse by raising the tool higher.


----------



## 47convertible

A red letter day here in the shop. I have finally gotten far enough along to hook up a DC motor and variable speed controls to the MW 701A lathe and turn it on. Motor and controls came from a $30 treadmill I scavenged on local craigs list. It had a nice rotary pot instead of the usual sliding lever to set motor speed. That's a plus for me. Tried to load a short video but could not. Can it be done here or are we restricted to still photos? 
Motor is supposed to be 2 hp but I think treadmill motors are over rated in that category.  While it was running and segmented HF belts were wearing in I ran the QCGB through its paces. Kind  of hesitant at first but it smoothed out the more I moved the shifters around. Lead screw turns fine and on the carriage the half nut engages like its supposed to. Carriage moves forward and reverse depending on gear shift setting and the power crossfeed works with seemingly no issues. What noise there is seems to be coming from the gears on left end of lathe.

I still have to build a box for controls including pot and tachometer, wire in a switch and then on to figuring out what to do about the turret tool post that sits too high to be able to center tools on work piece. I think the custom made cross feed table may be the culprit as its about .15 thicker than the factory cross feed table and that is about the distance I need to be able to lower to be cutting at center height.
A nice end to a good Thanksgiving weekend.
Jerry


----------



## Scruffy

Not sure but the  motor mounting and pulley assembly above remind me of a old 9 a or b south bend ,with the belt tensioner handle.
Thanks ron


----------



## brino

Excellent progress Jerry!
It looks to be coming along very well.
Congratulations.
-brino


----------



## 47convertible

Thanks brino. The encouragement is appreciated.  Since my note a friend in the sheet metal business built a box for the controls. Much better Than I could have done. Gonna try to find some switches and indicator lights worthy of his effort             .


----------



## 47convertible

Some advice please:
An update for the New Year on my Frankenlathe MW701A.  I've about completed the wiring for the changeover to the DC motor and controller and have checked out the wiring  and variable speed control and all works fine. I made provision for an inexpensive tachometer (photo) and have the board for that mounted (photo) but am now facing the quandry of where to mount the pickup and magnet to get true rpm readings.  The likely location would be somewhere on the spindle shaft, preferably on the spindle or one of the unused (probably smallest) spindle shaft pulleys to mount the magnet. I need to be able to mount the pickup which is about 2 in. long within about 1/4 in. of the magnet. The other locations would be on the gear end of the spindle inside the gear cover door.  I'm looking for suggestions. Downside of all of these is the oily environment that might hamper pickup of the signal.
Jerry
Sorry, can't seem to get rid of extra digital tach photo


----------



## FOMOGO

Your doing a really nice job there Jerry. Seems I've read something here recently on lathe tachometer setups and options. Might try a search on the topic. Mike


----------



## brino

FOMOGO said:


> Seems I've read something here recently on lathe tachometer setups and options. Might try a search on the topic.



I thought the same thing.....

Once recent thread is here:
http://hobby-machinist.com/threads/optical-rpm-sensing.40951/

But if you do a general search on "tach" there is a bunch of related info.

-brino


----------



## 47convertible

I appreciate the guidance and did read the links. I also thought about the hand held digital that counts on reflected light but since I had committed to the DC motor, I thought why not replicate what I did a year earlier on an old 17 in. Jet floor model drill press. I converted that to a DC motor for ease of variable speed and torque and used a digital tach. I didn't have to reinvent the wheel to do the same for the Logan Lathe.  You can see the floor drill press in the background of one of the attached photos .

Earlier this evening I did some scouting around for a place to mount the magnet and pickup and think I can mount them on the braking wheel on the spindle and manage to stay out of the way of the countershaft to spindle belt.  In the attached photo of the headstock its the drilled wheel to the backside. I also got a better photo of the control box mounted on the lathe table.
Jerry
ps, yes the really big 4 jaw chuck in the photo fits the 10 inch logan just barely and it has the 2x8 threading but it is so heavy I'd be afraid of damaging bearings if I ran it. It came with the lathe. One of those extras you take just in case.


----------



## brino

Hi Jerry,

I'm glad you found a suitable spot for mounting the tach. sensor on the lathe.
Your control box mounting looks convenient and clean.
That 4-jaw looks to barely clear the ways....just don't wind the jaws out too far!
That 4-jaw chuck could still be a vise for the drill press or mill.
-brino


----------



## 47convertible

I'm continuing to make some progress on the old Logan Lathe and was able to put in a piece of cold rolled bar the other day and make a few cuts to see what the lathe would do and to try out my repair of the 3-jaw chuck and my addition of quick change tool post.

It is going to take some fine tuning as the surface of the areas I turned are kind of rough as you can see in the photos. A combination of the fact I didn't support the outboard end with a live center from the tail stock and probably didn't have the right speed plus cutting tool is well used.  

I'm more than happy with my Chinese quick change tool post for $130 + the shipping. I'm thinking maybe a stronger DC motor may eventually be called for as the treadmill motor I used tends to bog down if I'm taking more than .010 -.015 cuts on mild steel at less than about 250 rpm on lathe spindle.  I'm not sure what that amounts to in motor rpm but when I turn it up to say, 350 spindle rpm I'm not bogging so badly.  I expect turning too slow also contributes to the rough finish on the cut.  I was able to reduce run out on the work piece from about .004 to about .025 by turning the mounting plate of the 3-jaw chuck and by fiddling around with how I indicate the work piece in the jaws of the chuck. Even though its a scroll chuck it has three sockets to tighten the work piece. I found the one marked '2' gets the best results if I tighten it first and then go around to 1 and 3. I can reduce TIR from .004 to .025.  I will make another test with live center hooked up and work piece re indicated to see if that improves surface finish of cut.

I've yet to explore some other options like using the back gears when turning.  I know it builds torque but in addition to engaging the back gears I have to also change belt location from countershaft to spindle to get spindle rpm to recommended level. That's for another day.
Jerry


----------



## wa5cab

I've yet to explore some other options like using the back gears when turning.  I know it builds torque but in addition to engaging the back gears I have to also change belt location from countershaft to spindle to get spindle rpm to recommended level. That's for another day.
Jerry
[/QUOTE said:
			
		

> Jerry,
> 
> With a given motor and motor RPM, torque delivered at the spindle is inversely proportional to spindle RPM.  If you have the belt positions selected to give the desired spindle RPM in direct drive, then shift into back gear and change the belt position so as to get back to the exact same spindle RPM (assuming that this is possible with the available pulleys) you will actually be delivering slightly less torque to the spindle than you were in direct drive because of losses through the back gears.


----------



## eeler1

Transformation is amazing to watch.  I'm gonna nominate you for most determined and ambitious restoration of 2016!!

Your finish isn't all that bad.  These light machines demand a really sharp cutting tool in addition to speed and feed issues.  Keep trying different feeds and speeds till you get the result you can accept.  Use the power feeds.

I wonder why the PO replaced the compound wheel with such a big wheel, but kept the itty bitty dial?


----------



## 47convertible

I think I may be as far as I want to go for now. I want to make some chips!
1. Took out the Treadmill 'beer can' motor and control. Just not enough grunt unless running at really high (5,900) rpm. Sold the pair for $110 locally
2. Purchased a 1 hp servo motor (2000rpm) and matching control. Built a new enclosure and mounted controls and tach. Much improved torque and quieter.
3. Purchased an inexpensive 4-jaw Chinese-made chuck and modified the one-size-fits-all 6 in. mounting plate to fit including boring and inside threading to my 2 x 8 spindle. Got some help from more experienced guys in evening machineshop class doing that. Darn, with 4-jaw it takes a long time to indicate a workpiece down to  .001 or less.
4. As a treat to lathe and myself I got a Logan Lathe logo from the Internet, copied a couple of them onto vinyl and put some 3M adhesive on the back and put them on the control enclosure and lathe head stock. (see photos). Since its a Frankenlathe but still mostly Logan I figured it would be OK. Not the metal plate the originals had but the same logo.

Future work to do: figure out why it takes so long for longitudinal feed to start up once half-nut is engaged and figure out a fex.
Jerry


----------



## brino

Hi Jerry,

I really respect the effort and skill it takes to take something that most people would consider junk and turn it back into something of use and beauty.
It is almost hard to believe that last picture and the first picture are of the same lathe.
What a great job you did resurrecting it!



47convertible said:


> Future work to do: figure out why it takes so long for longitudinal feed to start up once half-nut is engaged and figure out a fex.



likely one (or both) of these:
1) the carriage does not fit tight to the ways; there is some slop to take up as it shifts directions. Try disengaging the half nuts and simply using the handwheel to move the carriage left and right. Look for a diagonal twist or slight rotation of the carriage as you change directions.
2) some slop between the lead-screw and half-nut. if either (or both) are sufficiently worn, there could be "backlash" which is really just slop in the threads.

Some people will disagree with me, but I believe as long as you know about and understand the problems, you can make allowances and work with or work around them. 

You can do so much more with an imperfect lathe than you can without a lathe!

Now go make some chips. 
-brino


----------



## 47convertible

Hi Brino, thanks for the encouragement. It has been a bit of a slog at times but also really rewarding to take a Lazarus lathe and bring it back to life. I always had a plan B which was to part it if it was too far gone. I think I can set that aside. I have a drill press project that will involve turning a .75 x 8 Acme thread about 14" long to make an electric actuator to move the DP table higher or lower.  I will use an actuator from a treadmill but their range of motion is only about 5 to 6 in.  I plan to make my own Acme 8 pitch forming tool from HSS and attempt making satisfactory threads on shorter practice pieces. Should be fun.

Re the hesitation in the take up when engaging the half nut: I've been doing a 'work around' when doing threading practice by just backing off the thread engagement point far enough that I'm sure it will be fully engaged when threading tool meets work piece. Seems to work OK.  I also notice some slop in cross feed when backing out at the end of the threading run. The cross feed hand wheel dial will show about .020 or so of movement before any movement is seen by the eye. It makes it difficult to return to zero and then set a good depth of cut when getting ready for the next threading run. That small dial doesn't help. Maybe time to get on Ebay and find one of the new cross feed nuts I see there from time to time.
Jerry


----------



## wa5cab

There are 3 possible sources of so-called backlash in crossfeed.  The first is end-float in the cross-feed screw.  It should be possible to reduce this to about zero, and this should be done before checking the other two.  On most machines with sleeve bushing type cross-feed screw bearings and plain thrust washers, you adjust it by first cranking the cross-feed nut off of the screw and then alternately loosening and tightening the two nuts that adjust the axial position of the crank or handwheel that drives the cross-feed screw.  After doing that, re-engage the screw in the nut and back the cross slide up until two or three screw threads a sticking out of the nut.  Then measure the nut backlash using the cross-feed dial.  Then back the cross slide up some more until as far as you know the cross slide is in the area where most work has been done over the years.  Repeat the backlash measurement.  The difference between the two measurements is screw wear.  

On most new machines, total backlash would be expected to be 0.003" to 0.005".  0.010" is still OK.  0.020" indicates wear that's getting to the point where you should think about replacing the nut.  But... even with 0.100" backlash, there is no excuse for not being able to do good work.  One of the basic machinist skills is learning how to get around backlash such that the technique becomes second nature.


----------



## 47convertible

Good information. I will print out your reply and have it beside me when I attack that problem. Thanks very much.


----------



## Jimsehr

If the lathe has a 2.25 spindle you may be able to add a 5c collet set up .  I used to run Logan lathes in the early 50"s and all the Logans  in the shop had production cross slides .
jimsehr


----------



## 47convertible

Jimsehr, If I had a 2.25 spindle lots of things would be easier on this lathe. It is sort of a Frankenlathe and has a two inch spindle of unknown origin with 2-8 threading and four V-belt pulleys on spindle and counter shaft. I've checked all the sources I could find including Scott Logan and basically struck out. The headstock is custom made plate steel but all of the rest of it such as back gears and end gears appear to be Logan. Being a newbie I was fooled by the fact the Montgomery Ward / Logan tag showing 04tlc-701A had been affixed to the headstock (perhaps to give a clue as to its original form). Cross slide is also a one off as are some other pieces. Bed and tail stock are Logan. Ser. # indicates 1947 production. If you follow the thread back to its beginning there are photos of some of the different parts.  10 inch Logans had 1.5 -8 spindle/threading originally. I think the 11 inch and larger had the 2.25 spindle. I purchased it very inexpensively and though its not 100% Logan I'm happy after renovating it with what it will do. It is better than I am and I'm figuring out the work arounds.


----------



## Jimsehr

I thought you said you checked spindle and found it to be  2.25 8 when you said it had a 4 v set up. Check the spindle bore, 5c spindle is 1 3/8 with a taper at front to take a collet adapter.
jimsehr


----------



## 47convertible

Now you see why I'm taking the evening machine shop classes at the local community college. 
I didn't have so much as a caliper when I started so measurement was checked with tape--Bad Jerry. I'd read Logans were either 1.5 or 2.25 and even with a tape I could tell it was more than 1.5 and was at least 2". Knowing the tape was imprecise at best I made the assumption it had to be 2.25".
The bore of the spindle measures 1.016" with my caliper.


----------

