I am building a Shakeresque sideboard for the house. The legs will have a turned
foot about eight inches tall and are 36 inches long (https://www.flickr
.com/photos/77280442@N.../33552252738/in/album-72157679454407778/">https://www.f
lickr.com/photos/77280442@N.../33552252738/in/album-72157679454407778/ ).
And I have to add to that an extension at the top to keep the mortices intact
while I work on them. In fact I am planning on 42 inches so that if I screw up a
foot I can turn it around and get a second chance. This means my stock exceeds
the length of my lathe bed by several inches. Therefore, I need an extension. I
have created the extension, but before trying this I wanted to get
input/opinion/cautions from anyone who cares to advise, especially anyone who
has tried this already.

My lathe is an old Delta, c. 1951. I just happened to have a second old Delta
lathe of the same model, c.1962, sitting in the corner of the shop. I have
butted the two lathes end-to-end, added blocking and clamps, shaped a piece to
sit in the slot in the bed of each to maintain alignment, and shimmed one of
them the get the beds into the same horizontal plane. The tailstock base is long
enough to span the gap between beds and can slide freely between them, so
alignment is good.

Pics are here and if you zoom you can see the clamping rather well:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/77280442@N.../albums/72157679454407778

In the pics the stock that is mounted is not yet square and is over long at
about 52 inches. It spun nicely at 1400 RPM which ought to be a good enough
speed to do the turning. With the stock a bit shorter, squared and width reduced
by another 1/4 inch, it seems to me it will be safe. Last week I had one of the
decrepitudes of life corrected and the surgeon says no shop time for a while, so
I have time to consider your suggestions.

Bill

P.S.,
I know some of you will question why two lathes? Of course, if you do that also
means you don’t truly belong in this group!

Getting parts for these old lathes is ebay only and the parts can be quite
expensive. A few years ago it occurred to me to haunt Craig’s List for a lathe
to use for spare parts. After all, these are not things one can ship readily and
parting them out takes a while. One man’s inconvienence is another’s
opportunity. So I bought one cheap. It was functional, but turned out may of the
parts were non-standard-backyard-machinist made. So I sold most of the tooling
that came w/ it, stole the base to make myself a tool-table for behind my bench,
sold the lathe as a bench top model and got my money back. The legs give my tool
table a classic look and the table collects all the junk that normally
accumulates on a bench and keeps many things in easy reach.Here is the tool
table:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/77280442@N.../albums/72157704152892922/wi
th/46514086855/">https://www.flickr.com/photos/77280442@N.../albums/721577041528
92922/with/46514086855/

A few months later at an estate sale, for the Amazon.com price of a four jaw
chuck that I wanted, I bought the chuck and  lathe plus “lathe cutting tools”.
The  “lathe cutting tools” turned out to be vintage chisels and Addis carving
tools. Selling just those covered half my costs. My plan was to dismantle the
lathe to make a small package of spare parts, sell off a few more of the
unnecessary parts and stick it into storage. Then I saw a way to make space for
it up against a wall and there it remains, w/ a selection of wire and buffing
wheels ready to mount. What the heck, I only have one #5.

Hi

On 2019-03-20 12:44, Bill Ghio via OldTools wrote:
> My lathe is an old Delta, c. 1951. I just happened to have a second old Delta
lathe of the same model, c.1962, sitting in the corner of the shop.

But ... of course! Doesn't everyone?

Brent
-- 
Brent Beach
Victoria, BC, Canada

> My lathe is an old Delta, c. 1951. I just happened to have a second old
Delta lathe of the
> same model, c.1962, sitting in the corner of the shop.
No, do not modify it. That will ruin it for the lathe painters.

Sheesh.

Bill,

Modify the large?  Certainly not!  All you need is to mount the tailstock
somewhere off the bed of the lathe!
(And, it doesn’t have to be the original tailstock, just a “poppet” with a dead
center.)

I saw my late father do this!  He wanted to re-machine the propellor end of the
bronze prop shaft of his cabin cruiser due to damage from a previous owner not
replacing the skeg bearing.

He lined up his small metal lathe with his wood lathe using the “taut wire”
method.  He had the end he wanted to machine driven by the headstock of the
metal lathe, so within range of the carriage. The other “inboard” end  of The
prop shaft was on the tailstock of the wood lathe. He’d unbolted and removed the
headstock of the wood lathe.

Neither lathe was permanently modified in any way.

Pop had been a WW2 Seabee...he was the embodiment of the Seabee motto “Can Do!”

The “taut wire” method is well known to machinists and millwright.  Jim The Old
Millrat mentioned it occasionally. You can look it up.

John Ruth



Sent from my iPhone

Bill G asked

=====
... The legs will have a turned foot about eight inches tall and are 36 inches
long (https://www.flickr.com/photos/77280442@N.../33552252738/in/album-
72157679454407778/">https://www.flickr.com/photos/77280442@N.../33552252738/in/a
lbum-72157679454407778/ ). And I have to add to that an extension at the top
to keep the mortices intact while I work on them. In fact I am planning on 42
inches so that if I screw up a foot I can turn it around and get a second
chance. This means my stock exceeds the length of my lathe bed by several
inches. Therefore, I need an extension.
=====

A very fine job of improvising! Personally I would have turned the 8-inch foot
separately and then fastened in to the leg with a round tenon. The disadvantage
of my solution, however, is that it does not require the acquisition of more
tools. What was I thinking???

Chuck Taylor
north of Seattle

Bill

Looks pretty good to me,notbeing there in person.  Even if the two ends aren’t
exactly lined up, I donl't see a problem as long as they are pretty rigid.

Ed

> On Mar 20, 2019, at 11:07 PM, Chuck Taylor  wrote:
> 
> Bill G asked
> 
> =====
> ... The legs will have a turned foot about eight inches tall and are 36 inches
long (https://www.flickr.com/photos/77280442@N.../33552252738/in/album-
72157679454407778/">https://www.flickr.com/photos/77280442@N.../33552252738/in/a
lbum-72157679454407778/ ). And I have to add to that an extension at the top
to keep the mortices intact while I work on them. In fact I am planning on 42
inches so that if I screw up a foot I can turn it around and get a second
chance. This means my stock exceeds the length of my lathe bed by several
inches. Therefore, I need an extension.
> =====
> 
> A very fine job of improvising! Personally I would have turned the 8-inch foot
separately and then fastened in to the leg with a round tenon. The disadvantage
of my solution, however, is that it does not require the acquisition of more
tools. What was I thinking???

That is certainly an option. However, the piece is six feet long and will be
made stout to hold dishes and pottery. I am thinking the continuous grain is
important for strength even tho a separate foot would be quite strong and much
easier. Plus the tenon would have to be short because of the mortice in the leg
just above the foot.

Bill