QCTP For Boxford Model A

[HollowpointParticipant @hollowpoint]

I'm considering treating myself to a QCTP for my Boxford. I think I've decided on the Dixon type for the extra capacity over the piston type. I can't afford a proper Dixon so it will be one from either RDG tools or Chronos. I was just wondering if one is better than the other? The RDG version seems to be made by HBM (China) and the Chronos version made by Soba (India)? Anyone have experience with either? And know if the holders are interchangeable?

[HollowpointParticipant @hollowpoint]

[MalcBParticipant @malcb52554]

I am using the RDG T1 sized ( next up from Myford size ) on my 4 1/2" AUD. Takes the 16mm tools and less. I have about a dozen tool holders now, which are very cheap as I am able to collect from store.

Cannot compare with the imported piston types as never used the side by side, but for the prices paid I am very happy with my choice.

Depending on your tool shank sizes you may have to buy some longer socket grub screws for the centre height adjustment, as for some tools the supplied screws are too short ( or certainly were for me ) they are cheap enough. The holders for me are certainly rigid enough, including the parting off setup.

I have a friend who used the Myford sized one on his Boxford, but it wasn't substantial enough and he lost out on some rigidity, so he replaced with the T1 setup.

I would say taking aside some chucks, it's my Best Buy for this lathe. I do have one of the HBM 125mm self centring 4 jaws on it as well which is a really good ( and surprisingly accurate ) buy.

[Nick_GParticipant @nick_g]

.

Hollowpoint

I have one from RDG that I had fitted to my Boxford for a while. – If you want to pick it up you can have the damn thing for free.

This offer is just for the tool post though not the actual holders as I will pop those for sale on ebay at some point.

Nick

[HollowpointParticipant @hollowpoint]

Nick that's a very generous offer! I would gladly take it off your hands. Where are you based?

That said you don't sound very impressed with it?

[AjohnwParticipant @ajohnw51620]

I have seen the holders from Chronos. Nothing wrong with them as far as I could see – sent it back because it didn't fit my toolpost – a branded myford one. They did a version where the basic block that forms the tool post just has a bit at the bottom added to increase it's height. The problem for me is that the holders wont take a 16mm boring bar.

However the Chronos holders were the usual Boxford size. The usual problem with the cheap versions is soft screws holding the tool in place – the ends mushroom over so can't easily be removed. I managed maybe 4 years with some before I noticed that – on a myford.

Personally I think your wise to be looking for a Dixon clone where the holders are pulled back against the toolpost.

John

–

[Nick_GParticipant @nick_g]

.

Hollowpoint,

I am in Warrington.

Nope I was not impressed at all. Maybe I got a bad one and I did not realise so before it was too late to send it back. Mine has more movement than a harlots hips.

The cam action lets go of the actual tool holder under even a slight load, so things like parting off was lets say an …………….. 'event'.!

The actual tool holders are not the issue, it's the block it's self. While reasonably finished externally the inner workings of the cam locking assembly (the important bit) look as if they were cut with a dead badgers teeth and so do not mate properly over a big enough area when in the locked position and come loose.

TBH save your petrol money as it's about as much use as a chocolate fireguard. Maybe OK as a paper weight though.

If I get chance later I will take a few photos and post them here.

Nick

[Nick_GParticipant @nick_g]

Posted by Nick_G on 29/02/2016 10:19:32:

If I get chance later I will take a few photos and post them here.

Nick

.

Here we go.

On this next image you can see the small area that was making contact by the mark left upon it. The material is also quite soft so I presume some flexing will also take place.

Inner bore.

.

So we have a badly finished and poor material cam shaft and a horrible bore for mate against. – It really was never going to end well was it.?

Nick

[AjohnwParticipant @ajohnw51620]

Sounds like the answer is to buy – check as per photo's and if no good send it back. The bit that pulls back the holder should be square not round.

I bought one for another lathe recently and went for one off myford. Not much dearer than other sources. The myford label on it isn't as nice as the one on my Boxford though so maybe I had better have a look inside. They have sold all of the sets now and from phoning to query one or two things about it my impression is that they were not exactly conversant with what they were selling.

At Boxford size Chronos mention Sorba and it being the real thing. Well if the inside is like that it most definitely isn't.

John

–

[Nick_GParticipant @nick_g]

Posted by Ajohnw on 29/02/2016 11:47:11:

At Boxford size Chronos mention Sorba and it being the real thing. Well if the inside is like that it most definitely isn't.

John

–

.

To save confusion John. The one I got was from RDG.

Nick

[MWParticipant @mw27036]

I think the surface finish on some of those bits nearly qualify as a rasp or a plowed field kind of territory.

ps. having taken a closer look, i think i actually own this model! I dont think i noticed anything wrong with mine(no part off jumping atleast), but atleast i now know what i can blame my poor surface finish on steel on!

Michael W

Edited By Michael Walters on 29/02/2016 14:07:13

[AjohnwParticipant @ajohnw51620]

Posted by Nick_G on 29/02/2016 11:52:55:

Posted by Ajohnw on 29/02/2016 11:47:11:

At Boxford size Chronos mention Sorba and it being the real thing. Well if the inside is like that it most definitely isn't.

John

–

.

To save confusion John. The one I got was from RDG.

Nick

Good idea to clarify that aspect. I did notice RDG was mentioned and took a look at what Chronos offered.

The newer Myford one i bought is very similar to the one on my Boxford which probably dates back to the 70's. Main difference is the spring. The newer one has a large diameter one that matches the diameter of part that goes in and out.

I did come across one some time ago somewhere or the other where the cam action was wrong. It came too close to completely turning round and would with sufficient force on the usual spanner. It needs to get pretty close in order to gain the mechanical action needed but not too close. I have a feeling it was a piston type.

John

–

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Nick_G on 29/02/2016 11:13:01:

Here we go.

.

So we have a badly finished and poor material cam shaft and a horrible bore for mate against. – It really was never going to end well was it.?

Nick

.

That really is rather nasty, Nick

I was tempted to report your post on the grounds that the photos might 'deprave and corrupt' … but will accept that your intentions are good, and it's intended as a morality lesson for the innocent.

MichaelG.

[Nick_GParticipant @nick_g]

Posted by Michael Gilligan on 29/02/2016 17:20:23:

.

and it's intended as a morality lesson for the innocent.

MichaelG.

.

Innocent.! …………. Are there any of those sort of people here.? Golly and gosh.

Nick

[HollowpointParticipant @hollowpoint]

Blimey! That does look poor maybe it's a good thing I'm miles away! Save me the frustration you had. I have to say, you have put me off slightly with those pics. I wonder if the 250-200 piston type would fit? And if its any better?

[Johnboy25Participant @johnboy25]

I've bought bad tool holders that don't fit an original Dickson QCTH from one of the well known suppliers who had a stall at the MEX Sandown Park. I never sent them back – still have them. Useful as papper weights – Not!

Edited By Johnboy25 on 29/02/2016 21:16:40

[Nick_GParticipant @nick_g]

.

Have a chat to Ketan at ARC and enquire about their offerings. They seem to be concerned about the products they sell and are not just box shifters.

They also have a reputation that in the event of a problem they will sort it out.

I can also highly recommend the AXA multifix range. But these are bigger coinage.

Nick

[LathejackParticipant @lathejack]

A few years ago I also bought a Dixon type toolpost from RDG while at the Harrogate show. I don't know if they still do, but at the time RDG had two different suppliers for these tool posts, one set with five holders came in a wooden box and the other came in a blue cardboard box with just three holders, both sets were priced the same at about £110.

The set in the cardboard box with three holders was far better quality, with excellent machining and perfectly made cams. But I didn't realise this until I examined them after I had bought the dreadful one in the wooden box with five holders.

The one I bought sat on the shelf at home for a couple of months after buying it before I took a closer look to use it. I found that the mounting hole through the body was very badly formed with deep ridges and measured 19mm at the top tapering down to 15.5 at the bottom, and must have been produced at the factory with a totally worn out drill.

The cams were also terrible, they were badly formed and badly pitted with corrosion and had been finished off in places by hand on a bench grinder or something similar.

There is no doubt that RDG would have sorted this out. But as I had had it quite a while I decided to grind out the mounting hole to 3/4 inch, it took a while as its rock hard all the way through. The dreadful cams were beyond improvement, but mentioning it to RDG at the next Harrogate show a year later resulted in them giving me some replacement cams free of charge. These new cams were perfect and were the type used in the better quality toolpost that comes in the cardboard box with just three holders.

I still use the toolpost, but it leaves a bitter taste in my mouth every time I do.

Edited By Lathejack on 29/02/2016 21:28:35

[Nick_GParticipant @nick_g]

Posted by Lathejack on 29/02/2016 21:25:29:

one set with five holders came in a wooden box and the other came in a blue cardboard box with just three holders,

.

I suppose this may mean they sell and package what they have as mine came with 3 holders and in a wooden box which is the reverse of what they offered you. – The box is OK though as I keep drill bits in it, so not a total loss.

Nick

[HollowpointParticipant @hollowpoint]

Interesting, Soba stuff usually comes in blue boxes and the HBM one comes in a wooden box! At least I know which one I won't be buying.

Edited By Hollowpoint on 29/02/2016 21:37:47

Edited By Hollowpoint on 29/02/2016 21:38:13

[LathejackParticipant @lathejack]

The toolpost that came in the cardboard box at the time was definitely a differently made item to the one in the wooden box. The ground finish was much finer, the central hole was perfectly formed with a shallow counterbore on the underside. The cams were totally different being perfectly made without any hand finishing. They also used a longer cam in the taller body version, the grotty toolpost in the wooden box still uses the same shorter cam in the taller body. From memory I think the toolpost bodies intended for Boxfords come in two different hights, something around 50mm & 62mm hights

Also the small locating hole that is drilled right through the body to lock the toolpost in position to a hole drilled in the topslide is in the correct position in the corner, as on a genuine Dixon. The locating hole on the other toolpost that I had is in the middle of the edge of the body, right above the tee slot on some topslides.

Edited By Lathejack on 29/02/2016 22:07:32

Edited By Lathejack on 29/02/2016 22:10:30

Edited By Lathejack on 29/02/2016 22:13:38

Edited By Lathejack on 29/02/2016 22:14:33

[HollowpointParticipant @hollowpoint]

Definitely seems like the one Chronos sell is the better one. I might order one and find out. I can return it if it's junk.

[LathejackParticipant @lathejack]

It will be interesting to hear what it is like when you get it. Both makes of the Dixon type toolposts I refered to were offered along side each other by RDG at the time. A bit of a clue to their difference in quality was that the one in a cheap cardboard  box with just three holders was the same price as the one in the posh wooden box complete with five holders including a parting off holder and blade.

Like other folk, I have had trouble with new spare tool holders fitting and working properly, not only on the genuine Dixon toolpost I have but also on the copy from RDG. All the new spare holders I have bought over the years have come from RDG.

There seemed to be a bad faze a few years ago when most of the holders had to be returned. I found the problem was that the shallow and wide T slot in the back of the holder varied in its position in relation to the V form that locates it to the toolpost body. These were relatively cheap holders, costing less than half the price of some others, so problems were not unexpected.

The result was that some holders could not be fitted to the toolpost at all, some would fit but the cams would just spin round without locking the holder and some holders would fit but the cam could not be turned at all. The following year things had improved and all the holders I bought fitted and worked on the Dixon and the RDG copy. I only buy holders when I visit the Model Engineering Shows so I can check them while there or take them home and return them when visiting the next day.

Edited By Lathejack on 01/03/2016 00:32:32

[HollowpointParticipant @hollowpoint]

I've ordered one, I'll try to get some photos to compare the quality. Fingers crossed it's a good one!

[HollowpointParticipant @hollowpoint]

Well the toolposts arrived today. Can't say I'm overly impressed. First thing I noticed was just how sharp some of the edges are! Whoever made it certainly doesn't own a deburring tool! Second thing I noticed is the boring holder doesn't match. Took the cams and pistons out and the machining is almost as bad as Nick's. All that said it does seem to work fine. I think I'll keep it. But I will be letting Chronos know about the odd holder.

Edited By Hollowpoint on 04/03/2016 20:07:47

[Author]

Posts