Any benefits in mounting the tool post on the cross slide and removing the compound (Schaublin 135)

Hi I spoke to a German Schaublin restorer about skimming the existing compound but he said a big NO to that, it has two T slots running along it which he said should not be compromised as the result would be a weakened base for tool post mounting.

It also means that the original part is no longer as designed so this might bite me in years to come should I decide to sell it on.

The compound oiling is not via the pressure system on the saddle based plunger but through oil nipples on the circular base of the compound which is very simple and easy to do as required.

Thanks on the nod for cast iron BTW

Will see what's about material wise and who might get the task of machining the part and what they have kicking about too.

i understand the desire to keep things original and didn't see the T slot issue. Too nice of a machine to compromise with. Dave

guythatbrews said:

Sorry this got off track. I said I have an A aloris qctp (actually AXA) and for sure I'd consider the A multifix too small for a 10EE. I think some folks might also say an AXA aloris is too small for a 10EE but it's great for my use.

Marcs0, there can't be a doubt you will improve the performance of your 135 (or any lathe) by eliminating the extra joint of the cross slide. The cost is loss of flexibility. I opted to install pusher screws to fix the cross slide and eliminate the slop I could. This topic has been broached before and one poster suggested drilling through the top of top half of the cross slide and bolting it solidly to the bottom half.

BTW it is curious to me how European lathes have the tapped hole to fix the toolpost and American lathes have the t-slot. I wonder why? I suppose the t-slot may be a bit more flexible but there is a lot less support for the toolpost for sure. At least you don't have the t-slot. There is a youtube vid out there showing a method to fill the t-slot and make the top solid but I think the method is dubious.

Click to expand...

Hi guythatbrews,

well, so far as I was able to collect all information around Multifix and other systems, well, in my opinion, the likely reason for the T-slot in USA is the T-slot in UK. The machine producer in UK were leading in Europe and they created an own system named "Dickson" (before Aloris and Multifix) and for this they made a T-slot in the compound rest and so this idea came to USA. Maybe the reason was to have the opportunity to turn the tool post and to move back and forth.......... I was not able to find the real truth for this. From the point of stability, well, I would never create a big T-slot in the most weakest part of a lathe and broken T-slots confirm my thinking. The concept of Multifix is different and I made a video about this and I explained why you have to fill-up the T-slot:
https://youtu.be/4NKDlcb_Ysk
After World War II, many machines were destroyed or were confiscated by the allied victorious powers as reparations. After founding of the Federal Republic of Germany, the Multifix system inventor (from Switzerland) applied for a patent in Germany in 1949 and it was produced from 1951............. and Multifix does not need a T-slot and when you see that Germany became the leading mechanical engineering industry………. this explain why we have here just a bolt. I know a (guaranteed) number from the time of the German economic miracle in the 1950s: 500 size B systems were produced every single week.

Peter Wendlandt

Peter appreciate the video as have not seen this one.

Schaublin's compound is twin slotted so if I decide to run with this both need to be fitted with a long T nut and milled flat, maybe someone can suggest why Schaublin added two slots?

marcsO said:

Peter appreciate the video as have not seen this one.

Schaublin's compound is twin slotted so if I decide to run with this both need to be fitted with a long T nut and milled flat, maybe someone can suggest why Schaublin added two slots?

View attachment 377814

Click to expand...

I suppose the two slots are to accommodate the numerous accessories that Schaublin made for this system: grinding spindles, vertical slides etc.; for a lot of Swiss cottage-industry mechanics a Schaublin 102 could have been their only machine tool, so conversion to milling/grinding could be a big bonus.

That form factor with the 2 T-slots must have carried over to their larger lathes?

Note that your slide also has a central bolt hole suitable for mounting a toolpost such as a Tripan or Multifix, I've seen that on a lot of Schaublin compounds.

On the substitution of the compound with a solid cast Iron block, I plan to do that with my Astoba UW1 (considered to be as rigid as a wet noodle by some serious machinists), but it seems to me that having the iron block be exactly the same height as the compound slide would be essential - so every tool would be right on center height with both the block and the compound.

So going that route would not resolve any toolpost size issues.

I think Robin Renzetti's reasoning had a lot to do with not only rigidity but repeatability: tool 42 has a fixed offset in the DRO so just choosing that tool gives the DRO exact postioning at the touch of a button, no more time-consuming zeroing etc. after switching tools - which would have been neccessary with a compound moving around.

Kind regards,

Hans

Hans thank you for the info and feedback.

Good luck with the noodle lathe - sounds interesting!

Regards the solid tool post stand, I don't think this has to be the same height as the current compound, if it has to be, then the point of doing it is futile IMO.

I thought you could make it the height you require to allow your toolpsst and holder system to deliver centre line alignment, in my case as the Multifix 'E' is larger than the 'A' I currently have (and is known to be too small really for this lathe) I can make the solid mount to suit the E and allow me to load tooling so that I have adjustment both up and down. On the current A holder my tooling sits right at the bottom and is just about on the centre line but I have no adjustment options should I require them which is not how the system was designed.

Marc

Hi was offered one of the 'special' compounds by a Schublin owner but just as we were going to set up a trade he realised his tooling was too large for the standard compound and a Multifix A holder, real shame but guess that now means I will have to explore the solid tool post mount.

Going to do some measurements to calculate the required height from the x-slide to the top of the solid tool post so that a Multifix E size holder can be fitted and allows some adjustment of tool holders up and down to accommodate any requirements.

Maybe Peter (PeWe Tools) can advise and provide the measurement details as I will purchase his system and tool holders for this project?

Hi marcs0,
well, in general I always say:
Even we have so many experience after over 73,000 Multifix items, it is not serious possible to make a perfect recommendation just based on the model name or number. Beside the fact that there exist many thousands of different machines (and nobody is able to know all of them), it is not unusual, that in decades of production, the shape and the size of parts of a machine changed. Also it is possible that a pre-owner made some changes.
So I need your help to give a perfect recommendation:

• how many millimeter is the distance between the surface of the compound rest and the middle of the chuck?
• how wide is the compound rest?
• how strong is the motor? (because this is a safety issue, this is the most important information)

If the compound rest is removed, of course, this change the situation complete and one more question is important: What is the tool size / what is the height of the shank?

Peter Wendlandt