What's new
What's new

Monarch Series 61, Rebuilding for Improvement

The ways serve all else might be more accurate. But "Hold that thought".



See the contradiction in that?

Does you very little good to get "pointed at" if the saddle is able to depart the line, and in pitch and yaw as well as altitude.

My Not at all humble opinion is that if you have NOT corrected the bedways?

It is not yet the time to mess with ANY other alignment.

You had it right at the first statement.

Stick to it.

Sort the bed error first.

Or you will be forever chasing your tail on all-else for lack of solid reference.

UNTIL the bed can be made true again?

All you need to do is:

- Arrange to be able to drill from EITHER the TS or carriage.

- Arrange to be able to adjust the position of the TS center POINT, regardless of TS position, hi/lo, left/right or angled.

- Compensate .. as if all you ever had was a clapped out "company owned" lathe.

Because so long as the Gods of the bedways are sidegodlin?

That is exactly what you DO have!

Chase till your headstock is embedded in your tailstock :)? Worn i.e. not straight bed-ways have two impacts. One is more significant than the other. They can make the carriage move up and down and in and out, or the combination of thereof. The up and down has more to do with cutting ability and quality and some diameter-dependent size error. The in and out is a direct size error. Most of the in-out is the result of twists and most of the up-down is wear. TG is in a precarious situation because his composite measurement errors cannot be attributed to any one factor. 100% agree on getting the bed right. I would make, beg, borrow steal whatever it takes to get a Kingway thingy and qualify the bed first. No one can take a successful moonshot from the top of a house of cards.

All that said...I doubt he is getting a 0.005"/12" error form bed wear alone, there is something else going on.
 
See the contradiction in that?

I'm working, or supposed to be :D, so I'll give better details later.

But not contradictory at all. In fact one reenforces the other.

Straight at a laser beam, or a long up hill climb from chuck to ts end, the best accuracy will be achieved by getting HS spindle the best possible alignment to those ways.

Sure straight and ground ways optimal. Not every can do that. Deepest wear under chuck and gradually rises toward TS end. For anyone not grinding ways, a slight upward tilt to HS, to get spindle more close to parallel to the current ways position would absolutely improve accuracy of tool tip to work.

Regardless, I've laid out my plan pretty clear i think. We're just talking it out till i get to each point. Part of troubleshooting is knowing where you're at, and as much info as possible. Whether it relevant to my next step or not, I'm gathering info and bouncing it off people. :D
 
You make it sound like wore bed ways are like driving up and down a hilly road in West Virginia. Its not that at all.

Most work load, and greatest wear is at and under the chuck. At the beginning of ways.

This gradually gradually lessens as you move away from chuck, toward TS end. Not 100% dead perfect, but it is a steady incline. Someone not able to grind ways is absolutely better off adjusting headstock to that incline.

My intent as you and everyone knows is to grind ways. But for those that can't, improvement can be made by aligning, its just a fact.

We can try to muddy the water with saddle this or that, but thats a separate issue that can also be resolved.
 
You make it sound like wore bed ways are like driving up and down a hilly road in West Virginia. Its not that at all.

Most work load, and greatest wear is at and under the chuck. At the beginning of ways.

This gradually gradually lessens as you move away from chuck, toward TS end. Not 100% dead perfect, but it is a steady incline. Someone not able to grind ways is absolutely better off adjusting headstock to that incline.

My intent as you and everyone knows is to grind ways. But for those that can't, improvement can be made by aligning, its just a fact.

We can try to muddy the water with saddle this or that, but thats a separate issue that can also be resolved.

If you take the headstock off and if you have a good straight edge you should be able to ascertain the wear close to the chuck. The bed under the HS will have 0 wear, and it will have the most wear within 6-12" in front of the chuck. A good SE and feeler gages will tell you the story. If you have 10 thou height drop on the prism ways that would translate into ridges that are ~1.414 times worse, Given the fact that the saddle on that lathe is close to 2' long supported on two different rails, it is unlikely that it will drop 5 thou in 12" given your lathe bed looks too good for that to be true. There is something else going on. Mayhap a chip or burr under the headstock? Here is what I am trying to say, the bed on that lathe does not look bad enough to correlate to your measurements.

Also, the wear would drop pretty suddenly to 0 as soon as the saddle wing gets under the chuck, 10 to 15 thou wear would be almost visible on the ways. I think you would need that much to produce a 0.005"/12" slope
 
I am looking forward to seeing what you do to grind the bed. It is work I am unwilling to do, but I encourage everyone to experiment and experience. Doing generates a lot of learning. I have so many other projects that I can not backtrack to doing more Monarch work. I just need to keep plowing on to the next job.
 
"Conventional assumption", but no, not always.
Of my three lathes not ONE has that pattern.

- The '42 10EE has all of the wear in the center 30% to 40% of long-axis traverse. Just the way 'whatever" tasking it had worked to was.

- The '44 10EE has WORSE wear, but so evenly distributed FULL length it can actually do better work more easily.

- The ~ 1970's shipped-as-a-tracer Cazeneuve HBX 360-BC had very little bed wear at all, and it is not concentrated at HS, either.

Even so,, a carriage that drops, then bumps back UP as it get closer to HS is not a good candidate as reference for restoral OR for executing fine work.

One must "compensate".

If one is compensating? It is no big deal to compensate for more than one shortcoming.

Fair point, I based the "wear" assumption on TG's test bar slope measurement. The front of the saddle would need to drop 10 thou to make into a 5 thou/foot slope.
 
I have been following along here and saw where headstock alignment was being discussed. I believe there may be a way to check headstock alignment with worn ways, a bad spindle taper or even no test bar.

If the tailstock ways are in good enough condition up by the headstock, you can use a precision square. (I have one that has 12” to 15” of blade length. I’m talking about ones like Starrett makes that are lapped to within .0001 to .0002 over their lengths.) Clamp the square to the flat way and sweep with a test indicator. You can clamp to the v-way at 45 degrees and sweep for the horizontal.

If the ways are not in good enough condition or are suspect, sometimes the underside of the ways are in better condition. You can clamp a flat ground parallel to the underside. Then clamp the square to that and then sweep for vertical. Then clamp the parallel to the outside of the way if it is in good enough condition and sweep for the horizontal. This method is not as good as a good test bar with a clean taper and freshly ground ways because of things like indicator sag, clamping forces, etc. But it is a way.

I was curious about when you had the test bar in the headstock, and you have a test indicator set at the 9 o’clock and 12 o’clock positions. When you loosen or tighten the headstock bolts at the four corners, do you get any movement? I found that on these higher-end machine, if the headstock hasn’t been messed with before, they usually don’t move. Of course, this assumes that the machine is precision leveled.

One other thing, sometimes these old machines that sit on two pedestals and have set for years in an out-of-level condition can take on a little bit of twist and become set. This can make things more challenging.

Any way if any if this has been discussed before or thought of, please excuse me. Sometimes it is hard for me to keep up with the thread.
 
Well actually.. there is a fair amount of "de-coupling" or "don't care all THAT much" between the axis of rotation of the spindle of a lathe (where it 'points") and the axis of rotation of a typical workpiece that even matters enough to consider worth any effort.

- Collet work is usually close to the collet and short in the cut. It takes a greater amount of off-axis error that usually exists for it to display as a taper.

- Chucks can only hold a certain stick-out before centre support is wise, if not mandatory. Greater effect, yes, but not a show-stopper.

-Between centers work doesn't give a damn if the spindle is quite a lot walleyed. So long as the HS-end centre was turned in situ, a proper right-circular cone is "there". If the TS-end centre is not HELD where it needs to be due to TS "shoes" and/or quill wear? We simply move the tip of the centre... and finish the job.

Pursuing HS alignment as if a 30 inch bar - or LONGER - was expected to rotate true, gripped one-ended and unsupported ....is not realistic.

The only thing it much affects would be large-diameter faceplate or facing work, and even then, not all that much, because the average HS is NOT severely out of line and is not even easy to FORCE to be out of line.

At any looong run length, the sag of gravity applies, even if one DARED to attempt a cut with the TS-end unsupported.

IOW... OCD over HS alignment is chasing the wrong Gremlin = diminishing useful returns.

Sort the bedways, enjoy a more useful, ALL taskings benefit. Better return on the investment.

I agree that good ways are the place to start. Everything else depends on it. I simply thought that Texasgunsmith was looking for a way to check headstock alignment with the machine in its current condition – worn ways, old taper. I may have misunderstood. It will be interesting to see if the method he is going to use to grind the bed ways will achieve the level of improvement that he’ll be happy with. I respect the effort. If it were me, I’d just have it ground. But many things on these old machines are possible with enough patience and persistence.
 
I agree that good ways are the place to start. Everything else depends on it. I simply thought that Texasgunsmith was looking for a way to check headstock alignment with the machine in its current condition – worn ways, old taper. I may have misunderstood. It will be interesting to see if the method he is going to use to grind the bed ways will achieve the level of improvement that he’ll be happy with. I respect the effort. If it were me, I’d just have it ground. But many things on these old machines are possible with enough patience and persistence.

This thread can rack up a bunch of posts in a short time, and it may get hard to follow at times. Particularly as I like to discuss ideas, theories etc. Does not mean I'm always going in that direction, but I bring up possibilities because maybe another guy can do some, and not all of what I intend. Also bouncing ideas off people helps me think.

Because I work a day job, and occasionally a lot of O/T, I can't always reply in a timely manner. Like tonight did :D.

To answer a lot of questions, I've had my plan and course pretty well set prior to starting this thread. That has never really changed, though I will discuss options. That plan I laid out in steps in the first post, and still intend to follow:
Monarch Series 61, Rebuilding for Improvement

I have various reasons for collecting some numbers now. One reason is I have never ran this lathe under power. By knowing some numbers now, I have some way to document what improvement I made, and by how how much.

To answer one of your questions. I did not have a chance to break head stock mounting bolts loose to do your check. And it will be difficult right now. But I can tell you I cleaned and de-burred both head stock and bed prior to laying it in place. I came down nice and easy when I did so. I did precision level the bed first. And I feel the headstock is sitting right on bed, not racked or twisted.

The headstock alignment reading I have does not surprise me, nor am I worried about it. I fully expect it to be slightly out in any old machine. I'll be dealing with it more directly later in the thread. The discussion just got a little out of hand after I ran this initial check :D.
 
Do you have one of these?

http://totallyscrewedmachineshop.com/documents/Testing Machine Tools (Dr.Schlesinger).pdf

Remember you are building a stack and every component has an impact. If you are ok lifting the headstock, verify if the bed is level with the portion under the headstock, i.e the worn part is not dropping too much relative to the headstock support. Somehow you want to know if the bottom of the headstock is coplanar with the axis of the spindle, and then you want to know if the taper is symmetrical to the axis. Every one of those can contribute to what you measure there :). Schlesinger gives good points on measuring things.

I did not have that book. Thanks for the pdf. I just flipped through some pages, but I'll need some time to have a bigger read.

Between this post, and many after this. I think there are too many details for me discuss in one shot. :D

But a few I will get out that may answer some questions.
1. I did run a .0001" test indicator in spindle taper previously. Needle didn't flinch in a 360 rotation. For my skill set and interest thats more than fine for me.
2. I will lift the headstock totally off the bed to grind ways. But I don't consider it a super fun time. Its in the area of 2000 lbs. And I don't have powered over head cranes to make it easy.
3. Due to the weight and lack of desire, I won't be flipping headstock upside down. Nor will I be scraping head stock in. I'll shim when its time to align HS, with probably one glue or another to assist. My experience with alignments of this type is pretty fair on all sorts of heavy moving stuff. I'm both ok with the method, and comfortable with it.
4. My saddle was not bottomed out on the tops of vee ways, or anything weird to give me outrageous movement. I appear to be pretty well contacting on vee and outer flat. Been a while, but I want to say I can slip a .010" feeler gauge between saddle and inner flat.

5. Whether any of us agree or disagree, my main assumption is most here on PM have above average common sense. If you are taking your own personal free time to participate in a technical forum, you're an above average thinker imo. So my comments are with the expectation that each person is properly evaluating their own machine or situation to see if it applies, and using a bit of common sense. Some comments are very "in general" type, where some might have unique or extreme circumstances.

Or another example, someone with a 10ee with a 12" bed length isn't going to see a bed wear incline the same as someone with a 7' bed. . . Joking ! I know a 10ee has 24" :D
 
IOW... OCD over HS alignment is chasing the wrong Gremlin = diminishing useful returns.

Sort the bedways, enjoy a more useful, ALL taskings benefit. Better return on the investment.

I've spent way more time discussing it than I did running the initial check. Thanks for that :D.

As I recall, you own some test bars. Some pricey ones in fact. . . What would be the point of that ? :D :D

Getting bed ways improved are actually a priority for me on this. But I didn't coin the phrase "getting everything pointed at center". Bet ya most know it, what it means, and how it affects accuracy.
 
For anyone interested, I did run a vertical check at 12 oclock with the TS to see if there were any major changes verse using the carriage. There were not. I couldn't sweep the full test bar, as my set up didn't allow it. But I was still surmising roughly .004" upward tilt based on what I was seeing. I used the carriage to tow the TS.

428.jpg 429.jpg
 
I do have a No. 4mt test bar to test the tail stock. But actual numbers are not important here yet. I won't know exact numbers until HS is aligned.

I did want to know whether the wear was bad enough that I will have to address it, and it is. Now that I know, it will steer my course a bit as I plan to use the TS base as part of my tram to both check, and grind ways.

Using the test bar in head stock, I stuck a dead center in the TS. Leaving the quill retracted, I towed the TS up to the test bar:

430.jpg

A mostly top down view, you can see I got centered horizontally:

431.jpg

Now looking at the vertical, I'm easily .010" low, and probably closer to .015":

432.jpg

Now checking with quill extended. This quill extends 5":

433.jpg

I can see its just slightly worse with quill extended. I've had this TS apart, and cleaned and lubed. I'm ok with the bore and the quill, I'll deal with the slight variance. I'll get acual numbers here when I do the alignment for real.

434.jpg
 
For anyone interested, I did run a vertical check at 12 oclock with the TS to see if there were any major changes verse using the carriage. There were not. I couldn't sweep the full test bar, as my set up didn't allow it. But I was still surmising roughly .004" upward tilt based on what I was seeing. I used the carriage to tow the TS.

View attachment 339426 View attachment 339427

Move the saddle out of the way and measure the saddle ways from the TS near the chuck. Your measurements still confuse me. But this points more towards you having something stuck under the HS, also proves that your saddle ways do not drop 10 thou in 2 feet :)
 
Thanks to Mike Thomas for sending me more apron parts. He packages so nicely it makes for great long term storage. At this point, I think I have the majority on apron internals for spares:

444.jpg

If a future reader gets in a jam, I might be able to help you out with apron stuff.
 
Moving on to inspect and document ways a bit more.

My intention is NOT to grind ways under headstock. Looking here at carriage vee ways, they do not travel under headstock. And the length of carriage vee ways are about 88".

443.jpg

The plan is to grind both the carriage vee and flat ways for that total of 88". Now the outer flat way does travel under headstock, but I will measure and grind the same distance as the vee way, of 88", and that remains outside of headstock.

My next step is to mic the outer flat for carriage. One, to document the depth of wear. But also, to help ascertain if the bottom of bed way is viable as a reference point.

Measuring 88" from TS end toward HS, I placed a yellow paint dot every 6" to measure way thickness:

445.jpg

Measuring up close, along side headstock, at the first marker of the 88":

446.jpg

Measuring from TS end, I had to move forward a few inches, as some jack offs thought using the bed way as an anvil was a good idea.

447.jpg

Part 1 of 2. . .
 
Part 2 of 2:

Good news is I can use the bottom of bed way as reference. On un-wore sections of bed, my variation between head stock side and tail stock end is .0004".

Measuring at HS side, I have 1.3775":

448.jpg 449.jpg

On the TS side I measured 1.3779", so a .0004" variation over the length of usable bed travel.

Even with the .0004" variation, I'm counting my HS and TS readings both as zero, and my wear as minus readings. Again, measuring every 6", starting at HS Side, I measured 15 spots, and this is wear its at (HA ! A double entendre ! :D ):

450.jpg

We can see my deepest wear point on carriage ways at .0055".


Using the same method, I also measure the inner/TS flat way. This would be 78" from TS end to a couple inches before head stock:

451.jpg

My deepest wear here on TS flat way at .0034". Caused by carriage dragging garbage over it, on its short flat.

Now I gotta make up some TGS thingies to measure vee ways. . .
 
Working on some tooling to check vee ways.

First, and most important to me is to be able to mic the inside of carriage vee way. Yea, the bed end bracket is in the way on the end of the bed, but it gives us a good visual.

To be able to mic the inside surface of vee way I have to come in on an angle. This leaves us with the challenge of dealing with the bottom corner of the bed way though:

452.jpg

The vee ways are on a 45 degree angle:

453.jpg 454.jpg

Using the same 45 degree angle, but off the bottom of bed way, we could provide a parallel surface to mic from:

455.jpg

Just a rough template here, but making something of a vee block, we can provide that parallel surface to the inside of vee way:

456.jpg

Part 1 of 2. . .
 
Part 2 of 2:

I had a piece of flat bar, 1"x 2" and 7 inches long. And I wanted to make 3 tools for checking the vee ways. I'll be making all 3 from this. The first tool, I mentioned in the last post, for mic-ing the inside surface of carriage vee way.

457.jpg

Cutting it up for my 3 tools. All the storys of the saw guy are true btw, he's terrible, and I'm going to have to fire his ass. I circled in red the 3 pieces I need:

458.jpg

Starting to mill the first tool:

459.jpg

The end result of the first tool is pretty fair, and looks something of a vee block:

460.jpg

How it will look when I can mic the inside of vee way. Lead screw reverse rod is blocking my mic from sitting right, dammit ! Ah, not a big deal, I'll get the rod yanked out and get the readings.

461.jpg
 
Getting on to measuring the inside of vee way on bed, for the carriage.

Got the lead screw reverse rod pulled off machine to make room for a mic. Don't judge my mic, it looks heinous from a PO, but it measures fine :D. With the thickness of my new tool included, I measured 2.7565" on HS side, and 2.7585" on TS side. So a .002" variance over the 88" of length of vee ways, on un-wore portions of bed.

462.jpg

Because of the .002" variation over the length of bed, I just wanted to check the front bed rail thickness. I got about a +/- of .001" the entire length, with thickness measured at 5.238":

463.jpg

Feeling my numbers were good and consistent I mic-d the inner surface of vee way. As before, I marked out 15 spots, 6" apart over the 88" of vee way length. Head stock side starting at #1, this is my readings:

464.jpg

So the depth of worst wear area is .0105".
 








 
Back
Top