Burnerd Miniature Quick-set Toolpost Type TP

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Ken Weeks on 28/02/2017 22:10:03:

Michael

The tool body does not have a patent no. on it.

The tool holder has the British Patent No 655793 on it.

Hope this helps.

Ken

.

It does indeed, Ken … Thank You

The Patent is freely downloadable as a PDF here: **LINK**

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=GB&NR=655793A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=3&date=19510801&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP

… Much appreciated

MichaelG.

.

Edit: for completeness … here is the US Patent:

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=US&NR=2598206A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=4&date=19520527&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP

… which usefully cites the British 'application number'.

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 28/02/2017 23:17:15

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

.On the reasonable assumption that J. L. Austen-Walton is not a common name … it seems likely that the inventor has decent credentials as a model-engineer. **LINK**

http://gb.trapletshop.com/0-6-0-tank-locomotive-twin-sisters-plan

[ this doesn't matter a jot to me, but it may impress some ]

MichaelG.

.

Edit: also available direct from MyHobbyStore:

http://www.myhobbystore.co.uk/product/17306/twin-sisters-lo18

 

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 28/02/2017 23:33:23

[stephen goodbodyParticipant @stephengoodbody77352]

The stamped patent number is 655.793 Michael.

Best regards

Steve

[stephen goodbodyParticipant @stephengoodbody77352]

I see in some of the above that Mr Austen-Walton may have been involved. If memory serves I believe he had a 5 inch loco designs published in ME, probably in the 50's or early 60's at a guess. The loco name was Twin Sisters.

Best regards

Steve

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by stephen goodbody on 28/02/2017 23:29:51:

The stamped patent number is 655.793 Michael.

Best regards

Steve

.

Thanks for the confirmation, Steve

… Much appreciated

I've posted links to the GB and US Patents, for the record.

MichaelG.

.

It looks like our posts are crossing in the æther

… must be my bedtime.

 

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 28/02/2017 23:39:03

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

If I recall correctly Twin Sisters was somewhat unusual.

From 1966: "Our opinion is that the design of the locomotive Twin Sisters on the whole is a very good one, with the exception of the boiler, which we regard as dangerous, unless all the plates are properly flanged … for instance, stainless steel was specified for all motion parts and for many components where it is not essential, and could make a lot of work" (Prob. Martin Evans, in response to a reader query – he did complement other aspects of the design).

A 1949 correspondent wrote "I am afraid that I was one of the prro fools who could not resist the temptation when stainless steel was mentioned for the main frames, and have consequently had to divide my time between doing the job and obtaining the materials … all went well until I unbolted the two plates and I thought they were going to curl around my neck … what a fortune hacksaw-blade manufacturers must have made".

Perhaps practicality wasn't A-Ws chief concern?

Neil

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

Well that could also why you don't see many of these toolposts about, if they had prooved a good design and were successful then there would be more about. Seems that the likes of Multifix, Dickson etc won the day and in the small size are not really any larger.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Neil Wyatt on 01/03/2017 09:05:34:

If I recall correctly Twin Sisters was somewhat unusual.

From 1966: "Our opinion is that the design of the locomotive Twin Sisters on the whole is a very good one, with the exception of the boiler, which we regard as dangerous, unless all the plates are properly flanged …

.

An entirely non-confrontational question, if I may:

If the publishers regard[ed] the design as dangerous; does the Plans pack include any reference to that fact?

MichaelG.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by JasonB on 01/03/2017 09:14:32:

Well that could also why you don't see many of these toolposts about, if they had prooved a good design and were successful then there would be more about. Seems that the likes of Multifix, Dickson etc won the day and in the small size are not really any larger.

.

But does that actually stop the design being interesting ?

[most of the engines you model have been superseded … but that doesn't stop you finding the designs of interest]

MichaelG.

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Posted by Michael Gilligan on 01/03/2017 09:23:57:

Posted by Neil Wyatt on 01/03/2017 09:05:34:

If I recall correctly Twin Sisters was somewhat unusual.

From 1966: "Our opinion is that the design of the locomotive Twin Sisters on the whole is a very good one, with the exception of the boiler, which we regard as dangerous, unless all the plates are properly flanged …

.

An entirely non-confrontational question, if I may:

If the publishers regard[ed] the design as dangerous; does the Plans pack include any reference to that fact?

MichaelG.

I think there's a standard paragraph to the effect that 'these designs were not produced to modern practice and may need to be amended to conform to modern standards' or some such wording.

Austen-Walton used a flangeless design, and as he advised the use of Silbralloy (a phosphorus containing JM alloy) of low ductility and 'not to one used in sulphurous atmospheres' let us hope there are not many boilers to the original design out there…  was he ploughing his own furrow or digging his own grave?

Neil

 

Neil

Edited By Neil Wyatt on 01/03/2017 09:57:04

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Thanks, Neil

MichaelG.

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Posted by Michael Gilligan on 01/03/2017 09:51:18:

Thanks, Neil

MichaelG.

See my edit for more info…

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Thanks again, Neil

Those caveats will probably be useful to anyone contemplating purchase of the plans.

… 'though the toolpost design is of more interest to me.

MichaelG.

[Ken WeeksParticipant @kenweeks58536]

Well quite a journey from a simple question about a tool post to discussions about the safety of a steam locomotive design. taking in patents along the way.

That's what I like about this forum never a dull moment and a full inbox

Thanks to all who participated I enjoyed the comments

Ken

 

 

Edited By Ken Weeks on 01/03/2017 10:16:08

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

Posted by Michael Gilligan on 01/03/2017 09:29:43:

Posted by JasonB on 01/03/2017 09:14:32:

Well that could also why you don't see many of these toolposts about, if they had prooved a good design and were successful then there would be more about. Seems that the likes of Multifix, Dickson etc won the day and in the small size are not really any larger.

.

But does that actually stop the design being interesting ?

[most of the engines you model have been superseded … but that doesn't stop you finding the designs of interest]

MichaelG.

Indeed it is interseting and that is why I have continued to post in this thread, if it had of been of no interest I would have passed it by after the first look.

My interest was what advantages it did or did not offer other other designs. Personally I could see no reason to want to buy one now( or even when they were available), not much point in having a QCTP that additional holders would be almost impossible to obtain now, tool holding/adjustment looked fiddly and I had my doubts about rigidity of how the holders were retained.

I notice that on the Patent drawing the tool holders are narrower and do not overhang the base of the tool post and they also look to make full contact with the base, in the photos the holders are much wider which puts the tool off to one side and with no positive location of the top clamping plate there is a risk of the tool post rotating due to cutting forces.

J

Edited By JasonB on 01/03/2017 10:39:10

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Posted by Michael Gilligan on 01/03/2017 10:06:51:

Thanks again, Neil

Those caveats will probably be useful to anyone contemplating purchase of the plans.

… 'though the toolpost design is of more interest to me.

MichaelG.

All builder need to do is flange the plates, not fit them into counterbores, and use proper silver solder (and check their boiler inspector is happy).

Neil

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by stephen goodbody on 28/02/2017 21:21:24:

Hello Ken,

My George Adams round-bed lathe has this toolpost system – I've been using it for nearly 40 years and wouldn't change it for the world.

.

Hopefully … Steve [who has been happily using his ^^^] and/or Ken [who, I think, has recently purchased his] will be able to give a first-hand assessment.

I may be in a minority-of-one but, I think this would make an interesting article for MEW.

MichaelG.

[stephen goodbodyParticipant @stephengoodbody77352]

Toolposts, boilers and stainless frames all in one thread. Quite the development!

Looking back, my apologies for repeating the same information as others (patent number and Twin Sisters). I should have properly read all of the posts before adding my own.

Regarding my experiences with the Burnerd, unfortunately I really can't compare it with other small lathe toolposts as this is the only one I've ever used.

I can confirm that I've never had a problem with the toolpost rotating of its own accord however. There's a nut (probably 1/2" BSF, but I'd need to check) that tightens the center bolt into the T-slot, this is more than capable of stopping the post from rotating. All that the ball-ended handle does is to clamp the toolholders within the post, it does not clamp the post to the top slide.

Regarding the grub screws in the toolholders themselves, these are 2BA and keep the tools in place without problem in my experience. They also allow the tool tip height to be adjusted. As with all grub screws, the Allen key hexagons in the top ones tend to clog with swarf but can be easily cleaned out or replaced with cheesehead screws (which is what I've done in a few cases).

Regarding tool height adjustment, it's important to remember that my lathe is a round-bed and hence most of my adjustment is most easily done by rotating the saddle around the bed. Hence I really don't use the grub screws for height adjustment except when initially putting a new tool into a holder.

I have a decent selection of toolholders, but unfortunately managed to break one of my boring tool holders a few years ago when inserting a tool. A fatigue crack had evidently developed at the bottom corner of the tool slot. It could be mended, but fortunately I have another and so have not had the need so far. That will be a project for some future time, I'm sure.

It's important to remember that my lathe use is hobby only, and I'm one of those people who would rather use what they've got rather than buy new. I get a perverse satisfaction out of using old tools (my lathe is over a hundred years old, after all!) and have often found that new tools are better in some ways and worse in others than the ones they've replaced. However, after nearly 40 years using the same equipment I probably know the limitations (mine and the tool's) and feel sure that those limitations are likely more than would be the case for most others

I've recently made a new set of injector cones (very fine tolerance work) and last weekend was taper-turning and taper-boring some 6-inch lengths of 2.5 inch steel pipe for a traction engine chimney, so for me the lathe and tooling works just fine.

Best regards
Steve

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Many thanks for that, Steve

MichaelG.

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

Yes thanks Steve. It does raise as many questions as answers but I think I will leave it there.

[brickyParticipant @bricky]

I saw one of these years ago and set about designing my own to fit my Myford.My tool holders do not have screw adjustment,this is the only draw back to my design,but having packed tools to height for years it is not much of a trial as if using tipped tools you only do it once.I find mine quicker than my Dickson type ,the advantage of mine is that the holder is clamped directly onto the topslide and it's low profile with only the clamping nut in the way I find it very usable.It can be made to fit larger lathes than the Myford but a bit more thought might be needed for smaller centre height.My design is in my album .

Frank

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

Thats interesting Bricky, your design does seem to have overcome most of the shortcummings that I could see with the original design:

– Tool holders do not overhang the sides of the base

– Toolholders fully supported below

-Tool bits sitting on a solid base not on two grub screws

– Decent number of holders which makes toiol mounting less of an issue as you can have one holder for each bit This does compensate for lack of toolheight adjustment as you only need do it once.

– Good length of slot so you don'y have to use short toolbits

J

[Ken WeeksParticipant @kenweeks58536]

EdH

I have sent you a private message

Ken

Edited By Ken Weeks on 01/03/2017 20:48:59

[brickyParticipant @bricky]

Thanks for the appraisal of my tool post Jason.I thought that the original had potential but was lacking in some areas,Placing a tool on two adjusting screws was asking for tool flexing apart from the overhang to allow for adjustment.Chatter was what I thought would occur .My toolpost would not fit on my B type drummond as the topslide is to high although the centre height is the same as the Myford,that is why I am not sure about it's suitability for small lathes as I have no Knowledge of them, it would scale up to larger sizes though.

Frank

[Ken WeeksParticipant @kenweeks58536]

Stephen Goodbody Could contact me on <email removed to prevent spamming>

Edited By Ken Weeks on 09/03/2017 22:04:28

Edited By Neil Wyatt on 10/03/2017 08:46:17

[Author]

Posts