adjustable (QCTP) tool post

[Martin NewboldParticipant @martinnewbold]

Hi I have seen many posts on here about adjustable toolposts. However I remain confused as there is so many makers. There seem to be Dickson, Chronos, A& R, RDG,Myford, Rapid, Phase II, Bison just to name a few in no particular order . How do I make a decion about these as it seems not a simple question.

The names Dickson, A&R and Chronos seem to stand out but Chronos I have been told is made in India and am worried about the steel used. Can anyone help of give some feed back please?

[Martin NewboldParticipant @martinnewbold]

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

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.

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

Martin, the term more often used is a "quick change tool post" or QCTP rather than adjustable.

As with most things you get what you pay for. Myself I have a genuine Dickson with a mix of genuine and far eastern holders and it works for me.

May help if you remond people what machine you will be using the toolpost on.

J

[Martin NewboldParticipant @martinnewbold]

My lathe has a ML7 saddle so thinking need something nce i didnt like the modern 7/8" bolt on types and have no idea if its just Dickson who made them with a larger dia hole. As its possible on this to use th countersunk allan bolt to bolt on a larger dia holder as my existing toolpost uses an inch centre which i presume is much more solid

Edited By Martin Newbold on 30/06/2016 19:24:26

[mechman48Participant @mechman48]

+1 for JasonB / MichaelG comments

I have a Bison clone of the Dickson type with a mix of genuine / Indian / far eastern tool holders; all interchange with the tool post ok so they work for me.

George.

[Martin NewboldParticipant @martinnewbold]

Hi George is that the one for sale on Ebay ?

[alan-lloydParticipant @alan-lloyd]

Hi George check out the multi fix system, its the best

[Bob Brown 1Participant @bobbrown1]

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.

[Martin NewboldParticipant @martinnewbold]

Posted by Bob Brown 1 on 30/06/2016 21:01:26:

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.

Hi Bob, yes this is the main reason is for tool easy centre hieghts . The fourway though has an extra nob which pulls in the little holders I am presuming this is an advantage on the ones without this extra nob as its stiffens up the tool holder?

[Howard LewisParticipant @howardlewis46836]

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

[Martin NewboldParticipant @martinnewbold]

Hi Howard do you have any pictures on how the ML7 post mounts to the cross slide mount mine has a countersunk screw hole on the underside of it . It might be arlier than yours

Cheers

Martin

[BazyleParticipant @bazyle]

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 GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Bazyle on 30/06/2016 23:10:13:

The Multifix … somehow people manage to produce good work without using one.

.

Bazyle,

In your otherwise excellent review of designs, I found your dismissal of the Multifix a little surprising … I think your punchline is actually true for any of the QCTP systems.

When this thread was opened, I actually thought it was to be about single tool adjustable designs [like the Norman, for example, or the Myford 'Boat'] … But Jason 'clarified' that, and it is now a discussion about Quick Change.

MichaelG.

[BazyleParticipant @bazyle]

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.

[WindyParticipant @windy30762]

On my friends long bed Harrison he bought a cheap QCTP when tightening the tool holder it cracked the body.

Better to buy a quality one.

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

Posted by Michael Gilligan on 30/06/2016 23:43:51:

When this thread was opened, I actually thought it was to be about single tool adjustable designs [like the Norman, for example, or the Myford 'Boat'] … But Jason 'clarified' that, and it is now a discussion about Quick Change.

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.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by JasonB on 01/07/2016 07:41:21:

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.

.

Fair enough, Jason …

MichaelG.

[Martin NewboldParticipant @martinnewbold]

Hi everyone , wow that is lots to think about Bazlye it seems from what you have said the The T0 or 000 or 0XA size is suitable for a Myford. I understood the T1 would fit a Myford and agree this is all confusing. Yes the title was changed by Moderator for clarification What was the cheep QCTP Windy I didnt understand your point about Precision are you saying a Myford or Drummond is not a precision lathe as I can assure mines not wobbly. It seems save for the proper QTCP one is the way forward then not a copy

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

The T.00M is the usual fitment on a Myford, a T.0 will be too big and the T1 bigger still.

Sizes here

As yours is a bit of a Heinz lathe you will need to take some measurements to work out the best height toolpost or whether to use a smaller one with packing plate.

Edited By JasonB on 01/07/2016 09:33:53

[KWILParticipant @kwil]

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

[Cornish JackParticipant @cornishjack]

Interesting that the 'adjustable' toolpost term has been immediately taken as reference to the QCTP. Nobody has mentioned the 'swing-clear' home brew variety. I have used 4-way and QCTPs and now have a 'swing-clear' (made by someone else) and its ease of use leaves everything alse behind. Adjustment is ultra simple and the ability to move it out of the way for dimension checks without losing the settings is excellent. The designer (Martin Cleeve??) used his lathe as a working tool and needed efficiency. Worth considering?

rgds

Bill

[Clive FosterParticipant @clivefoster55965]

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

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

The Dickson has the advantage of getting over the first item that Clive raised that I don't think any of the others do. Just use one of the extended tool holders which are more than rigid enough unless you are taking stonking deep cuts.

[frank brownParticipant @frankbrown22225]

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

[Author]

Posts