This may be relevant, Andre : **LINK**

https://www.polytechforum.com/modelengineering/chester-cestrian-multifunction-machine-comments-24256-.htm

Note the meaning of the word 'Cestrian' : **LINK**

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Cestrian

Whether it was a re-badged Golmatic, or a copy, I know not.

MichaelG.

I'm very impressed by that GOLmatic … Thanks for the video link, Bill

MichaelG.

I want one! (and the knowledge to use it)

Brian

From the Practical Machinist thread that I linked:

[quote]

i think the golmatic was around 7600 € and the chinese copy around 1300€

thats why i chose the chinese copy (hbm)

[/quote]

MichaelG.

Well that’s one hell of a picnic table, unlikely to blow over in the wind though.😉😀

Edited By V8Eng on 14/11/2018 09:51:08

.

Sorry, Brian … I am not an owner, merely an interested observer.

The original GOLmatic appears to be a beautifully made machine that works as it should.

… I have no idea how the 'clones' compare.

MichaelG.

.

Edit, for clarity: My post at 09:33:21 yesterday included a verbatim quotation from a contributor to the practicalmachinist thread that I had linked previously. … The statement is not mine.

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 15/11/2018 14:01:55

.

No problem, Brian

MichaelG.

Well I can clearly remember when the Cestrian was being offered by Chester Machine Tools all those years ago, it had a blue paint job and I think at the time it was priced at £1995.

I can also clearly remember examining and fiddling with the Cestrian at an engineering show, then walking a short distance to examine the genuine GOLmatic being offered by another company who also had Emco machines, it might have been Speedwell or maybe Pro Machine Tools.

One item I remember is the tailstock attachment fitted on both machines for use when in lathe mode. The tailstock had a large diameter outer quill that contained a smaller diameter inner quill. The outer quill was slid quickly into position by hand through the tailstock casting, then clamped in position. The inner quill was then operated by a feedscrew and handwheel in the usual fashion. On the GOLmatic the outer quill slid through the casting smoothly without a hint of play, on the Chester Cestrian the outer quill was quite a sloppy fit in the casting and rattled its way along when it was pushed through. This isn't a criticism of the Cestrian, it's just the way it was.

All other areas on the Cestrian looked very good, the table operated smoothly and the quill in the mill head casting was a good fit, and all ground parts looked excellent. I did quite like it.

i wonder if Chester sold many or any, I have never come across a Cestrian other than the ones Chester had on display.

Edited By Lathejack on 16/11/2018 02:26:20

Edited By Lathejack on 16/11/2018 02:30:58

.

By my reckoning, that makes Clive impressed with the GOLmatic

… which is understandable: Such a machine needs to be be built very well.

MichaelG.

Andre

Quick correction. My contribution was intended as an assessment of the ex-factory quality from White Eagle. The assumption being that that they did build the Cestrain for Chester and that the manufacturing standards would have been similar to those applied to my square column mill. Which is probably not unfair. I found it disappointing that White Eagle got the hard, machining accuracy, part right then spoilt the ship by not making some fairly simple design revisions between prototype and production followed by inadequate QC in the build phase.

I probably looked at the same display machine as Lathejack but skipped a detail inspection as it seemed obviously "too much machine for not enough money" given the constructional and manufacturing accuracy needed to produce a decent machine of this type.

Neil

I don't think Andre is calling out small size per se as poor design feature of small lathes. More a case of highlighting the mismatch between dimensions and capability of the current "standard" small lathe concept given the work it will be put to by the amateur. Fact is current small lathe size, relative dimensions and work piece capacity derive directly from the classic pre 1900 bench machine. Nothing wrong with that but these were factory machines made to do work of a certain range of size for an appropriate investment in machines and equipment.

We tend to forget the importance of first cost when discussing the design, size and capabilities of machines for the home user. Big difference between new cost then and cost now on the used market. Fact is the design of all machines made for the home user have historically been heavily compromised by the need to produce something affordable by the first purchaser. Especially as the market has always been relatively small so a maker concentrating on that market will not have the resources for the sophisticated production machinery that is so important in driving down prices. Especially as such equipment would probably produce a years worth of output in a week or two!

It should be no surprise that all the "good" Model Engineer machines Myford, Boxford, Viceroy, Atlas, SouthBend and so on were primarily produced for a more substantial market. Training, light engineering, research shops et al. Home users being very much a small, but useful, additional market to bring a bit more money into the factory. Even the Myford, which was probably most focussed on the home user, was still primarily industrial. So sizes and capabilities were still derived from industrial practices as were production methods. Industrial production methods being what lead to the UK industry decline when it it wasn't possible to afford new factories with new methods to hold down prices. It should be self evident that, in the absence of hefty Government support (wartime!), new factories and new methods can only be afforded if the market is both substantial and seriously expanding. An economic analysis of the home computer and mobile phone is interesting.

These days the relative cost of accurate, quite sophisticated machining methods is fairly low and CNC seriously lowers the equipment cost / production quantity barriers to market entry. I entirely agree with Andre that the mini lathe especially is due for a serious re-think in size, layout and capacity. Larger centre height, big bore plain bearing spindle and permanent motor driven feeds instead of gears seem to be a no brainer. Think stripped out CNC. Cheaper too if designed that way fro the start. Not to mention the potential attraction of selling a CNC ready machine.

Clive.

Edited By Clive Foster on 21/11/2018 10:58:06