Monarch 12CKK, Prepping to Get Back in Service

[TomBoctou]

Any idea what the difference between a CKK and a CK is?

 

[rabler]

Any idea what the difference between a CKK and a CK is?

Looks to me like the biggest difference is the CK includes the feed/leadscrew reverse shaft in the apron, which also allows for setting stops. My CK doesn't include reverse, but I suspect from looking at the build sheet that the reverse on this CKK was an option. My '44 CK was a 3HP 6 pole motor (11xx rpm) vs this CKK being a 5HP 4 pole motor (17xx rpm). But I believe that was also an option on either lathe. My CK didn't have a coolant pump, but again that may be a build option?

 

[Ultradog MN]

Any idea what the difference between a CKK and a CK is?

I'm not sure anyone knows exactly.
My friend has a CKK. I have a CK.
Some differences we've noted:
His had no factory reverse on motor, #4 MT taper in the tailstock, no feed/lead reverse on apron and 5 hp motor.
Mine has feed/lead reverse on apron, factory reversing 3 hp motor and #3 MT tailstock. And I have some extra stuff, travadial, upgraded cross feed dial and a couple other doo dads.
Both have 1K spindle speed.
Every difference we've noted were just optional items and could easily be added or deleted when it was originally ordered.

 

[KT_NorCal]

Thankfully it still has the covers over taper attachment:

View attachment 384081

And the last pic I saved from the listing:

View attachment 384082

Do you by chance have some detail pictures of the taper attachment cover? The ones on my 14C are missing and I hold zero chance of finding them I'm guessing, so will try and fab some up. I'm hoping to get them as close to the originals as possible. I assume all the measurements for them between the 12 and the 14 would be different but the shape/layout is probably the same I'm guessing....

 

[texasgeartrain]

Do you by chance have some detail pictures of the taper attachment cover? The ones on my 14C are missing and I hold zero chance of finding them I'm guessing, so will try and fab some up. I'm hoping to get them as close to the originals as possible. I assume all the measurements for them between the 12 and the 14 would be different but the shape/layout is probably the same I'm guessing....

The main section here is one piece, with a second going over the end kinda sorta of cross slide ways. My other lathe the large piece is in two pieces:


I've seen some clever adaptions the look mostly correct. Using steel baking sheets with lower edges. Cut to fit, and maybe tangs tach welded on for the screw holes.

 

[KT_NorCal]

The main section here is one piece, with a second going over the end kinda sorta of cross slide ways. My other lathe the large piece is in two pieces:
View attachment 394313

I've seen some clever adaptions the look mostly correct. Using steel baking sheets with lower edges. Cut to fit, and maybe tangs tach welded on for the screw holes.

Hmmm. Do the two sides of the "tray" hinge up to access the TA? Doesn't look particularly easy to remove if not.

I've got the intermediary cross slide cap... just stripped all the nasty paint off it actually... is that the piece above the actual cover or is that another piece that sits on it somehow?

I think that is potentially do-able. If you have a moment when you are messing with it next time if you could take top/bottom front/back pics that would be awesome. You think it is about 18 gauge sheet?

Thanks for the help!

 

[m-lud]

Hmmm. Do the two sides of the "tray" hinge up to access the TA? Doesn't look particularly easy to remove if not.

I've got the intermediary cross slide cap... just stripped all the nasty paint off it actually... is that the piece above the actual cover or is that another piece that sits on it somehow?

I think that is potentially do-able. If you have a moment when you are messing with it next time if you could take top/bottom front/back pics that would be awesome. You think it is about 18 gauge sheet?

Thanks for the help!

I like the one piece cover. Slotting the bolt holes out would make removable and installation a lot easier.

 

[texasgeartrain]

One eye sore from being a fork lift at HGR was the bang on the chip pan:


A reasonably quick fix, so I addressed it. Using a couple of steel blocks and a heavy C clamp I squeezed the rim and sheet metal below:


Result is satisfactory:

 

[texasgeartrain]

Working on stripping the rest of lathe down. Worked on getting apron off. A little trickier handling apron without lead screw reverse rod to help for lifting it. I placed it over chip pan where I could support with blocks of wood:


Besides the top down bolts, there are two screws on each corner of front face side that need to be removed, one of the holes seen here:


Using an over head crane to lift it off:


Pretty filthy, but luckily no gear damaged. And surprisingly, the worm wheel is in good shape. I have complained many times about lube systems not working, but fortunately the major lube points are working on this lathe, and consequently many of the parts are in good shape. Not too bad for a 1946 machine:


Interior of apron in good shape too:

 

[m-lud]

From your first photos of the lathe at HGR it looked like a lathe that could be oiled up and ran. The pic's of the back of the apron show why the apron always needs to be pulled. I guess all those chips could have fallen from the lead screw or it was blown off with an air hose daily.
Maybe you could fab a cover like the 10ee has.

There is a cast iron guard on ebay for a square dial 10ee for 15 bucks. Maybe it could be bolted to your 12CKK apron. It may not work without modification

Monarch 10EE Square Dial Lathe EE-3544 Apron Worm Gear Cover | eBay

As shown, in overall good condition.

www.ebay.com

There is a bar across the back. The arrow in the photo points at it. Does it reverse direction of the travel.
[/URL]

 

[texasgeartrain]

There is a cast iron guard on ebay for a square dial 10ee for 15 bucks. Maybe it could be bolted to your 12CKK apron. It may not work without modification

There is a bar across the back. The arrow in the photo points at it. Does it reverse direction of the travel.

The thought crossed my mind to maybe add a chip shield of some sort as well. Not thrilled with chips so easily entering and packing that sump area and worm gear. I'll be having a better look at a solution for sure.

The cross bar you're pointing out. . .I'm probably butchering the correct phrase, but a safety interlock, or lock out is what I'm thinking. When you engage half nuts, the bar slides and keeps you from engaging long feed, locks it out.

I'd have to think about the why for's and hows. Because on qcgb you select either feed rod or lead screw. One or the other spins. Anyway when half nuts are engaged you can engage cross feed, but long feed is locked out. Without feed rod spinning though, I don't think cross feed will work so. . . yeah, I need to think about that

My series 61 has similiar, this pic is from the 61. In the pic the bar is temporarily removed, but it would slide in and block that round plunger seen sticking out. By coincidence, 61 chip guard too:

 

[rabler]

I'd have to think about the why for's and hows. Because on qcgb you select either feed rod or lead screw. One or the other spins. Anyway when half nuts are engaged you can engage cross feed, but long feed is locked out. Without feed rod spinning though, I don't think cross feed will work so. . . yeah, I need to think about that

If the half nut is left engaged and you try to use normal carriage feed, the carriage would be trying to move. But the half nuts on the stationary leadscrew would be holding it in place even if it is disengaged at the qcgb. Something would give ....

 

[texasgeartrain]

Was getting the carriage disassembled to remove taper attachment. The next machine I tear down, I want it to be a cast off from a gold or platinum shop, cleaning the chip out will be more fun .


Looking at the oil trenches on bottom side is interesting. Not straight lines nor the lightning bolt style. Looks like it was done with a hand power tool. Not beautiful, but it was effective.


Working on getting the head stock off:


The clutch was being a real pain in my a#@, trying to get it apart. Clutch works, and I can adjust it. So I decide to leave it, before I destroyed something. Instead, unbolted belt guard from motor base and took it with head stock:


More cleaning to do:


Soon I'll be working to get the bed off.

 

[Jdub63]

I have come to the conclusion that I will tear this lathe down, separating the large major pieces. Not a major rebuild. But a decent clean up I hope. As well as addressing some repairs along the way. Plus the electric motor looks like original, and very cool, I'd like to rehab that as well.

Looking back, that was one slippery slope ... My normal way of a "quick once over" too Great job, thanks for documenting it here.

 

[Cal Haines]

...

Looking at the oil trenches on bottom side is interesting. Not straight lines nor the lightning bolt style. Looks like it was done with a hand power tool. Not beautiful, but it was effective.
View attachment 398255

That suggests that the saddle has been milled down at some point in the past. I have the same thing on my 10EE. Look to see if the right end feed-rod/leadscrew bracket was lowered to compensate.

 

[rabler]

Look to see if the right end feed-rod/leadscrew bracket was lowered to compensate.

I suppose it would help, but to do it right wouldn't you have to lower the QCGB too?

 

[rabler]

So I decide to leave it, before I destroyed something.

If you do need to take it apart, I have plenty of pictures of the one in my 12CK. The Monarch parts diagram is particularly unhelpful. I think they just included a brief picture from the clutch OEM.

 

[texasgeartrain]

To Rabler post#56. Yes, but not so easy on a Monarch to lower qcgb. Be it Monarch, or some other rebuilders, they were just lowering the lead screw end bracket. Trying to hit a certain gray area of decent operation, with the lessor effort or expense put in.

At first blush, i don't think mine was altered, as it didn't catch my eye during removal. But I'll run a check during assembly.

 

[m-lud]

Without lowering both ends the bushing on the right would also have to be bored at a very slight angle.
Up by the headstock that method would have little effect and still put down pressure on the leadscrew and could try to raise the carriage.
I dont doubt that rebuilders may have done that but its not doing it right. I havnt pulled a gearbox so dont know what lowering it would entail but could see a possible can of worms. Maybe not?
Lower both ends or nada.

Hey! It could tighten up sloppy half nuts a little

 

[texasgeartrain]

Without lowering both ends the bushing on the right would also have to be bored at a very slight angle.
Up by the headstock that method would have little effect and still put down pressure on the leadscrew and could try to raise the carriage.
I dont doubt that rebuilders may have done that but its not doing it right. I havnt pulled a gearbox so dont know what lowering it would entail but could see a possible can of worms. Maybe not?
Lower both ends or nada.

Hey! It could tighten up sloppy half nuts a little

I think the theory is, the lead screw, feed rod, clutch rod, and potentially LS reverse rod can flex a little. So by only lowering end bearing, you have relieved some strain, and thereby improved.

There is a horizontal guiding trench for both end bearing and qcgb that make adjusting higher or lower a complicated endeavor. As both are aligned and held in place with that trench.

Something like a South Bend, both end bearing and qcgb are bolted to underside of bed way, and can lowered with shims a bit more simply.