Martin,

You may be better to first decide what style of toolpost you want/need … Then find our who makes them.

Nick_G ended up buying a Multifix clone … and, if I understand correctly, he is very pleased with it.

… Sorry to confuse the issue further, but I think it's an important point.

MichaelG.

My Boxford came with a Dickson and a 4 way tool post, must admit never used the 4 way and have added a some holders as time has gone on. The thing I like is if I want to change the tool it's easy and no setting to centre height once done and I do use removable tipped tools in the main.

Just to be pedantic, my Myford ML7 Cross Slide had a 7/16" BSF threaded post for either the clamp or the 4 way toolpost.

Being a fully paid up Luddite, on my "new" larger lathe, I still use a 4 way, (Actually 2, since I made one for the back of the Cross Slide, so have 6 tools set to my centre height gauge. Not enough, since one has to be removed for knurling, or using the 2mm parting tool instead of the 3/32 in the Back Tool post ).

The reason for not going to a QCTP is purely lack of space to store all the toolholders, (I work in the inspiration for Rubik's Cube!).

Strangely, some time ago, in MEW, an article advocating QCTPs said that tool changing was no quicker than using a 4way. (But obviously only for three tools, and after that you are into height setting)

You pays your money, and you makes your choice!

Howard

Edited By Howard Lewis on 30/06/2016 21:46:15

You will end up with a lot of toolholders so bear in mind their cost.
The Multifix allows the holders to be set in 5 degree (I think) increments around the toolpost. This is of limited value so may be an expensive feature. It is the least common and somehow people manage to produce good work without using one. It is extremely difficult to make the holders at home. Accuracy etc is dependent on the quality of manufacture and is not inherent in the design.

The Dickson is recognised by having two V grooves in the holders and a post that pulls it inwards and aligns the holder because of the grooves. Homemade holders are tricky so not often made. there are several clones.

The Piston type is recognised by having a circular or oblong shape in the working faces of the toolpost. These are the pistons and move outwards to lock the holders. The holders have a female dovetail that fits over a male dovetail on the holder. The piston pushes the holder outwards to lock on one face of each side of the dovetail. These are many clones but the original high quality one is Aloris and more recently Phase 2. These toolholders are relatively easy to make compared to the Dickson.

The Wedge type uses the same holders as the piston but on the toolpost dovetail one side is made to move outwards using a wedge action to lock the holder. The holder is therefore locked onto both faces of one dovetail by both faces of the other. It is potentially by design more rigid and slightly more accurate than the piston style. The toolpost is more expensive than the piston and cheaper clones are not yet widely available in the UK, but have appeared in the USA in the last year.

There are a whole bunch of other varieties but the above are the market leaders, not given in any order.

Sizes get rather confusing as there are three main designations. T0, T1, T2 and 000, 100, 200 and 0XA, AXA, BXA. The T2 and 200, BXA are the same size and suitable for a 12in lathe. The T0 or 000 or 0XA size is suitable for a Myford. Transition points in between are not clear cut.

Edited By Bazyle on 30/06/2016 23:52:15

Michael, my point was that the cost is out of proportion to the value for an amateur. It is the same as the question of which lathe. An amateur just can't justify a new CVA as it won't make their wobbly wheeled loco run straight just because it's a precision lathe.

Michael with all the makes and suppliers being mentioned in the opening post I had little doubt that the OP was asking about a QCTP.

I agree with JasonB, your lathe is a Heinze lathe, the topslide may well be partly ML7, ie the rotating base, but the leadscrew and dials and the top casting seem rather different

The main tool post body on all quick change systems is pretty bulky which can be a serious disadvatage on smaller lathes. Especially when using the tailstock for work support when reaching that end of the work often requires either the tailstock poppet to be pretty much fully extended or excessively great lathe tool projection from its holder. Neither of which is conductive to rigidity which rather defeats the object of adding tailstock support in the first place. There can also be problems getting round steadies, both fixed and travelling. Generally the older small lathes intended for use with clamp or lantern tool posts are deficient in cross slide travel when using quick change systems. With the clamp or lantern types the tooltip can be pulled back over the topslide if need be to make a bit more working room. With QC systems the tip almost invariably has to project beyond the topside, 4 way blocks can be nearly as bad. Maybe approaching an inch difference in miniumum tool projection which is quite a lot on a small machine.

One often overlooked advantage of the Dickson system is that its very easy to clean. All the mating surfaces are nicely external with no little crannies to trap small swarf and debris. Its also very easy to pop the clamp mechanism out to scrub inside. Given the small clearances involved its amazing how much stuff gets inside. Especially brass. Filp side is that Dickson systems are known to be a bit more sensitive to swarf and debris than other types. Leave it to build up or forget to keep things clean land holder security drops off.

As most folk here know I advocate home made interchangeable two slot block type tool posts as being an appropriate QC system for home shop workers. The size can be made a better match for the machine dimensions and cost a better match for the the home shop workers depth of pocket. You can also arrange matters so as to set tool tip heights off the machine which is far easier than doing it on the machine. Especially if done by direct measurement which pretty much draws the teeth of the shimming monster.

Clive.

Edited By Clive Foster on 01/07/2016 13:47:30

I have had a Churchill Cub for 30 years, it had a 4 way tool post with a big gap, it could take tools up to at least 5/8". I used to find that it would take me longer to shim up the selected tool then to do the job, such as parting off a bit of tubing.

I found thats it is the total number of shims in .005" steps up to 3/8" that I found frustrating. So you have to use a 3 or 4 mm shim then a pile of thinner bits. It would be nice to keep the shims with the tool, but I simply have not got that number of shims in all thicknesses.

I bought a T2 set from Chronos as a Christmas present from the wife and an extra pair from the kids. Fantastic! from the first use it was a revelation. One of the toolholders was faulty, insufficient clearance for the piston, but 5 minutes with an angle grinder sorted that. The only grumble I have is that the locking screw for the height, is the same as the tool locking screw. I have absently minded released the height lock rather then the tool lock. When I get around to it I shall change the height locking screws to an Alan headed grub screw, so an Alan key will be needed to do any height adjusting.

So far so good .

Frank