Monarch Series 61, Rebuilding for Improvement

[texasgeartrain]

This is a bit of a continuation from this thread:

Getting a Monarch Series 61 Back in Service

My original plan was to clean, lube, and align with minor repairs. I decided a while back to take it few steps further.

Please note: my goal is improved, not perfection. My goals are improved contact for rigidity, improved bearing surfaces, and improved accuracy.

Keep in mind that I'm "working with what I got". That includes skill set and tooling . In general my goals are to improve inaccuracies and contact surfaces by 50%. If I manage to get everything even tighter, let's say the .001”-.002” range even better.

I don't know the outcome yet, but reaching any, or both goals would be a victory to me. I would not expect pretty or photogenic scraping patterns . I'll do my best, but my goals are more practical, functionally more rigid, better bearing surfaces, and improved accuracy.

My plan, though I expect it to change as I cross each new bridge:

1a: Make a new bearing in qcgb for feed screw. Might also attend to end bearing block for lead screw, feed screw etc. Prefer to do later, but I want rods sitting right for survey.

1. Survey. I want to do a survey as complete as possible before making changes.

2. Pull tail stock upper half. Get lower half scraped flat. Lower half will be used as a trolly. I will begin to build part of that trolly and continue survey.

3. Pull head stock. Continue survey. Determine if trolly is stable and accurate enough to carriage ways.

4. Build upon the trolly to hold a grinder.

5. Grind the carriage ways. Maybe only inner vee for carriage. Maybe all, unknown yet.

6. Build up and scrape in carriage using c932 bronze. Using apron, plus lead screw, feed rod etc to help determine the numbers.

7. Install and align head stock to bed ways.

8. Align cross slide/compound to head stock. Whether that happens through cross slide or compound adjustment, not sure yet.

9. Adjust tail stock height and alignment.

Then I'll be sorting out the rest. No doubt I'll have some side steps along the way, or jump around a bit. But this is the rough idea.

Current state of affairs, plus data tag and build sheet on machine:

 

[texasgeartrain]

I think the two more dramatic decisions here, are first, the decision to attempt to grind my own carriage ways. And second, to use c932 bronze to build up any surfaces that need it.

Addressing the first, attempting to grind my own ways. Cost, logistics, time etc, are always considerations. But this is a project I want to attempt. I live about 5 hours from Dallas, I could drag the bed up there myself and have it re-ground, you never know, still might happen. But this is something that I want to give a try, and intend to do.

I'm not the first guy to attempt or do any of this. Not even here on PM.

Harry Bloom, aka beckley23, from his 2008 thread “Another New Toy”. I first began to think of my own plan after reading the thread from the late great Harry Bloom. As the thread rolled into 2009, he came up with the idea to make a sled to plane the vee way, starting about post #169:
Another New Toy

dsergison in 2006, found this with further research. He attempts to grind using TS base and a toolpost grinder:
fixing hardened ways.

4GSR in 2011. Texas' own gave it a go, also using a grinder, but a different approach. Besides a thread here on PM, he posted a youtube vid. The thread:
My Way Grinder

4GSR's youtube vid:
My Lathe Way Grinder in Action - YouTube

"We stand on the shoulders of giants". Something I believe. Through others attempts we can look and see what worked well, and what difficulties they had. And each of these 3 examples had varying experiences. Looking at those, I'll give my take on what I can build on from their experiences.

 

[rke[pler]

I would expect that the decision to grind the carriage ways would depend much on the condition of the tailstock ways, this because you're going to have to depend on them for a travel surface for the grinder. I think I would survey the tailstock ways with an optical autocollimator - not for the accuracy but for the distance. You *might* use stretched piano wire (I've got the sag tables around here somewhere) but that's likely about as much trouble.

It might be that you can get a base idea by using a straight edge and some feeler gages - see how much feeler you can get under the tailstock way at various places along the bed. Might give you an idea if grinding is even in your future.

I recall that Harry told me that he wasn't likely to ever try that again, and wouldn't have done it except things were really slack in the shop so he figured he'd may as well spend the time doing something useful.

 

[texasgeartrain]

I think I would survey the tailstock ways with an optical autocollimator - not for the accuracy but for the distance. You *might* use stretched piano wire (I've got the sag tables around here somewhere) but that's likely about as much trouble.

I recall that Harry told me that he wasn't likely to ever try that again, and wouldn't have done it except things were really slack in the shop so he figured he'd may as well spend the time doing something useful.

Funny you mentioned the piano wire for sag. It was going to be a minor side project in this. I had read a Forrest Addy post explaining the formula table a bit here:
Wire sag table (for the retro aligners)

And found an older thread here:
Forrest, I found it. Wire sag table.

Anyway I in fact did buy some .016" wire for this. and I want to say I need to hang 30-35 lbs off it. I don't really understand all the math though. Thought I'd ask you guys for help on that, or wing it just to see if I have an obvious banana.

 

[m-lud]

Funny you mentioned the piano wire for sag. It was going to be a minor side project in this. I had read a Forrest Addy post explaining the formula table a bit here:
Wire sag table (for the retro aligners)

And found an older thread here:
Forrest, I found it. Wire sag table.

Anyway I in fact did buy some .016" wire for this. and I want to say I need to hang 30-35 lbs off it. I don't really understand all the math though. Thought I'd ask you guys for help on that, or wing it just to see if I have an obvious banana.

The links to all those old Threads are priceless. You have had it in the shop and level for over a year so it should be settled out. Hopefully you have No Banana today.

The Rebuilding for Improvement is what's practical and hopefully all that's needed. I'll be watching and learning.
Keep things in perspective.
I once read Harrys , Another New Toy thread. He pulled off a miracle with that lathe.
Don't let frustration make you reach for the belt sander.!

 

[texasgeartrain]

The links to all those old Threads are priceless. You have had it in the shop and level for over a year so it should be settled out. Hopefully you have No Banana today.

The Rebuilding for Improvement is what's practical and hopefully all that's needed. I'll be watching and learning.
Keep things in perspective.
I once read Harrys , Another New Toy thread. He pulled of a miracle with that lathe.
Don't let frustration make you reach for the belt sander.!

My guess with no checks at all. . . Its a 65 year old machine, I wouldn't doubt the center of lathe bed, unsupported, probably has minor sag, compared to both supported ends. If not the longest bed without a center support, its right up there.

Reality. . .again I'm going for improved, not perfect, so even if some sag, I don't expect it to change my plan in dealing with at least with the inner vee way.

However, I did actually have a plan I think can reduce sag, should it exist. When leveling a lathe, you need to let it sit a day or 3 to settle out, and the cast iron does move. If I was to create a center support, let's say "C" shaped, with vertical portion of C toward rear. Then I could still use chip pan, and slide out the front.

The C support might not be as rigid as left and right bases. But large set screws on upper horizontal portion of the C could gradually be tightened, raising center of bed. Just like leveling a lathe. . .where gradually over days you could begin to correct some sag. Some of it ? All of it ? Not sure, but I think very doable, and surely some correction.

Anyway, its sort of a side quest that had been on my mind. The actual check with wire won't happen until I remove head stock again though. I'm a little bit away from getting there yet.

Edit: Another possibility to correcting some sag is using the two end bases to assist. They are quite heavy. They each have have four leveling adjusting screws, one on each corner. By either increasing the inner adjusters, or removing tension from outer adjusters. . .The weight of bases could begin to flex center of lathe bed upwards. Again that could take days or weeks with minor adjustments. . .letting it settle out etc.

 

[matt_isserstedt]

Have you "leveled the machine" aka set ways in the same plane with something like 199Z master precision level

And what does a DTI tell you if you trace the tailstock flat way from an indicator mounted on the carriage? (move along entire length of travel)

 

[texasgeartrain]

Have you "leveled the machine" aka set ways in the same plane with something like 199Z master precision level

And what does a DTI tell you if you trace the tailstock flat way from an indicator mounted on the carriage? (move along entire length of travel)

I had to check the "Z" designation there . My Starrett No 199 is prior to them putting that designation in there, though I'm pretty sure all No 199's are ground vials, and rated at .0005" per foot. Nice thread here on it:
Starrett #199Z- what is the significance of the "Z"

To answer your question though I did level with that, twice, with follow up adjustments after a settling in. Twice because I slid the lathe to the right about a foot after an initial placement . You can see part of that on this post:
Getting a Monarch Series 61 Back in Service

I will level again though. Reason being, on length wise leveling, I adjusted head stock end maybe .015" higher than TS end, to allow coolant, oils and such to run toward chip pan and TS end. For the sake of rebuilding however, I want head stock and TS end level as I sort out "adjustments" to TS base, carriage, cross slide etc. I'll be using the level to certain degree on those pieces in part of my estimations.

To answer your second question, I don't have those numbers yet. That will be part of the upcoming survey.

 

[m-lud]

Quote
Edit: Another possibility to correcting some sag is using the two end bases to assist. They are quite heavy. They each have have four leveling adjusting screws, one on each corner. By either increasing the inner adjusters, or removing tension from outer adjusters. . .The weight of bases could begin to flex center of lathe bed upwards. Again that could take days or weeks with minor adjustments. . .letting it settle out etc.[/QUOTE]



My attempt at a little humor is always too dry .
I don't expect that lathe has much bed wear or sag at all. Maybe a little up by the chuck as usual.
Its something how that heavy beam /bed can flex. Setting out of skew can twist but it will come back in line or even correct slight wear

I understood your title and why. Making it better without grinding the bed would be good but ! You have too look at how long you want it down and how much time too spend on it or if its even needed
The banana comment I made was in reference to that silly I have no banana song. Silly me.
Whatever path you take will make it better.
You have a 10EE also to get running. Once my apron is oiling right I'm going to use mine as is.
You still have a full time job,

I know you anxious to use your lathe but not so much that you wont take time and make things so it makes good parts when you flip the switch.

OT
There is a thread in the antique sub forum where the guy says his friend has ran a lathe for twenty some odd years and never checked the oil or oiled anything.
The headstock is now stiff turning.

 

[texasgeartrain]

My attempt at a little humor is always too dry .
I don't expect that lathe has much bed wear or sag at all. Maybe a little up by the chuck as usual.
Its something how that heavy beam /bed can flex. Setting out of skew can twist but it will come back in line or even correct slight wear

We're all good. I think we have well established a similar humor, and similar thinking.

I don't really expect this bed to be sagging like a banana. Some ? Maybe. Thought crossed my mind before. The wire check, even fast and dirty could give some indication, without eating up too much time.

Basically tie off the .016" wire somewhere past headstock end, but soften the downward arc, not tie off 90 degrees straight down off bed. Run the wire along the flats and past TS end of lathe. Use a stand with a pipe to allow wire to turn 90 degrees and hang 30-35 lbs on it.

In the middle of bed, use a flash light and some feeler gauges to see if I can get in-between bed way and wire. Even if we don't do the math on wire sag, I think we will see something.

.005" ? meh no worries. . . If .100" ? I might crap a bricks

Anyway, a quick enough check we can experiment and see.

 

[dcsipo]

This is a bit of a continuation from this thread:

Getting a Monarch Series 61 Back in Service

My original plan was to clean, lube, and align with minor repairs. I decided a while back to take it few steps further.

Please note: my goal is improved, not perfection. My goals are improved contact for rigidity, improved bearing surfaces, and improved accuracy.

Keep in mind that I'm "working with what I got". That includes skill set and tooling . In general my goals are to improve inaccuracies and contact surfaces by 50%. If I manage to get everything even tighter, let's say the .001”-.002” range even better.

I don't know the outcome yet, but reaching any, or both goals would be a victory to me. I would not expect pretty or photogenic scraping patterns . I'll do my best, but my goals are more practical, functionally more rigid, better bearing surfaces, and improved accuracy.

My plan, though I expect it to change as I cross each new bridge:

1a: Make a new bearing in qcgb for feed screw. Might also attend to end bearing block for lead screw, feed screw etc. Prefer to do later, but I want rods sitting right for survey.

1. Survey. I want to do a survey as complete as possible before making changes.

2. Pull tail stock upper half. Get lower half scraped flat. Lower half will be used as a trolly. I will begin to build part of that trolly and continue survey.

3. Pull head stock. Continue survey. Determine if trolly is stable and accurate enough to carriage ways.

4. Build upon the trolly to hold a grinder.

5. Grind the carriage ways. Maybe only inner vee for carriage. Maybe all, unknown yet.

6. Build up and scrape in carriage using c932 bronze. Using apron, plus lead screw, feed rod etc to help determine the numbers.

7. Install and align head stock to bed ways.

8. Align cross slide/compound to head stock. Whether that happens through cross slide or compound adjustment, not sure yet.

9. Adjust tail stock height and alignment.

Then I'll be sorting out the rest. No doubt I'll have some side steps along the way, or jump around a bit. But this is the rough idea.

Current state of affairs, plus data tag and build sheet on machine:

View attachment 328893 View attachment 328894 View attachment 328895 View attachment 328896 View attachment 328897

get, borrow or make yourself a Kinggway thingy. And measure the carriage bed from the tailstock bed near the headstock and the other way around near the tailstock, Also the flats where the carriage or the tailstock does not touch the bed will have 0 wear. As Richard King said be a detective to find original surfaces.

If you have to build up the carriage use rulon or or turcite. Much easier to apply and scrape than bronze.

Bronze works, but harder to adhere and harder to keep flat.

 

[rimcanyon]

In no particular order, here are some thoughts.

The 10EE bed also has some strange bolt patterns that could be exploited to twist a bed for better alignment. I did add a .001" shim in one tailstock end mount point to achieve an arguably better alignment when I installed the replacement bed on the 59 lathe. Checked it with a K&E autocollimator and I was happy with the result. A Davidson 600 would have been a better choice, but that was before I knew about the advantage. So I suggest reading Gernoff's posts. Possibly this one: moglice-machining-10ee-carriage-323649, and if you are convinced, contact Thermite, he has a few of them...

And a related question: First, I don't know how the 61 base castings are supported. Does each base have a 3-point contact with the floor? However it is, you should be able to get the same sort of twist on the bed by adjusting each base's support left to right.

Back to your original post: the lower tailstock casting should be both flat and parallel to the ways. The latter can be checked using a dowel in the V-way on the surface plate. Might have to do some calcs or trial and error to get the correct dowel diameter so that the height matches the flat way.

What is C932 bronze? Why not Turcite or similar?

I have done some work using turcite, and I found that it was really helpful to have a cnc mill to cut the oil grooves, especially if the turcite is thin. e.g. to cut the zig-zag grooves .010" deep using a ball mill on a 60 degree v-way. That way you won't go through the turcite like can easily happen cutting by hand with a grinder or knife.

Getting the tailstock ways in pristine shape may be an issue. Harry's saga of scraping the hardened ways of his long bed 10EE is worth reading.

Re: building and scraping in the carriage... Same considerations apply to the headstock. i.e. if the headstock gets lowered as a result of the bed grinding, won't the fit of the headtock to the gearbox be affected? I know it would be on a 10EE, there is zero clearance at that location. Also the tailstock on a 61 - is there a rack and pinion to move the tailstock along the bed?

And lastly, suggest you look for a parts machine with a good bed and save the energy for all the mechanical restoration work, new bearings, etc. Call Monarch, they may have one, you never know.

--------------

Just realized, the headstock sits on the tailstock ways, so its position won't change if you grind the ways for the carriage, so strike my comment above about the headstock and tailstock.

 

[texasgeartrain]

If you have to build up the carriage use rulon or or turcite. Much easier to apply and scrape than bronze.

Bronze works, but harder to adhere and harder to keep flat.

What is C932 bronze? Why not Turcite or similar?

dcsipo and rimcanyon had a same question about c932 vs turcite/rulon, so I'll get to that first as it has a longer reply. The other questions/comments I'll try to get to a little later on.

On the question of using bronze, for me its in part a craftsmanship thing. I'd prefer to use metal over plastics. Turcite and the like have been in use for quite a while, they work, they have up and down sides.

I have used c932, also known as SAE 660, primarily as round bearings on bearing/bore or shaft repairs. There are different types of bronze, c932 is a bearing bronze with tin and lead in its mixture. It is excellent for bearing material due to the lead in its mixture and can operate when a lack of lube occurs (conditions may apply ).

If you scroll to the bottom of this link there is really good info on various bronze:
Applications: Industrial - Selecting Bronze Bearing Materials

Bronze spec charts:
Bronze Alloy Charts, Leaded Tin Bronzes | Advance Bronze

Some comparisons:
Bronze, Brass, and Copper Alloys | National Bronze Mfg.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When first considering c932 for way material, I posted this thread to discuss it:
Turcite/Rulon vs using bronze

A bit rare, but a fella pops in now and again to post, thermite I think it is. He is well on board with the idea of using bronze. He has some interesting ideas of using oilite 16 bronze as well. But I also found he discussed the up side to bronze in a number of threads.

I also found really good opinions in these two threads:
https://www.practicalmachinist.com/...version-turcite-rulon-etc-346704/#post3128007

and here:
When should you consider something other than Turcite for a wear surface

Richard King explains using ampco 18 (aluminum bronze) in post #4, and post #23 he and his father used it to rebuild a 10ee:
When should you consider something other than Turcite for a wear surface

to be continued. . .

 

[texasgeartrain]

For what we do in repair work, and machine repair. The two most easily found and used bronzes would be c932 leaded tin bronze, and c954 aluminum bronze. Both are readily found in flat stock, round stock, and hollow round in a multitude of sizes.

Ampco 18 is a proprietary aluminum bronze, which chemically is close to c954. Ampco 18 is not as easily found from regular suppliers though. In searching for other and more exotic bronzes, some only come in round stock, or special orders from maybe a single point supplier.

Aluminum bronzes are stronger, but also less forgiving than bearing bronzes, in that damage to its opposing mating surface may occur at much greater rate than bearing bronze if lube is lost. Also being harder, natural wear to the opposing surface will also be greater than if using bearing bronze.

C932 is softer, but by my estimation will still be harder than the synthetics like turcite and rulon. Even so, the bearing bronze will wear before the ways do, which would be preferred. And as ways may or may not lose lube on occasion, I'd prefer to give the bearing bronze a shot, before using aluminum bronze, as less or no damage may occur.

c932 is damned close to free machining with excellent machinability. c954 is a bit tougher to machine.

For me, I wanted easily found and reasonably cost materials for bronze. That's either c932 or c954. I'm going with the bearing bronze c932 first. If I have issues, or fast wear, then I will try c954.

 

[texasgeartrain]

As part of the survey, I'd like to mount at least the lead screw to help gauge with apron mounted. But I'd actually prefer feed rod and lead screw reverse mounted as well for different points of reference.

Before getting to that though, I know bearing replacement is needed for feed rod, to allow feed rod to be at its normal height.

Feed rod connection is bottom right in this pic, note the bronze bearing:



On the other side of this bearing, and qcgb cover is a gear. The gear is only supported from this bearing, nothing on the opposite side of gear.

With the weight of gear hanging down, you can see the end of its stub shaft pointed up with a gp on bottom side of bearing. That gap is easily .030":



Just using my finger to press down on stub shaft, you can see the gap now at the top:



I'll be yanking the qcgb off to pull the end cover and replace the bearing. I have hollow round of c932 for this also, and will make the bearing.

 

[texasgeartrain]

Also checking the end bracket/ bearing assembly for lead screw and other rods. Lead screw bearing is not worn out, though I have two length wise gouges in the bearing material, presumably from removal or installation of the end bearing assembly. Undecided if I will replace that bearing.

The bushings for feed rod and clutch rod are wore pretty good though. I'll be replacing those for sure. They are the bottom two holes in this pic, the larger hole for clutch rod:



I cleaned up the housing a bit, and you can see the old bearing surfaces here:



There are knock out plugs on the opposite side. Shouldn't be too hard to press bearings straight through:



There is no way to oil any of the bearings in this end bearing assembly. Thinking while I'm at it, I'll drill some passages and add some gits oilers.

 

[nt1953]

You may find that the unused flats beside the v-ways are better surfaces to check things with than the tailstock flat and v-way.
I decided not to attempt to grind the bed but to remove the ridges on the bed and rework everything else. Here are a couple of pictures of my slide:





All I did was remove the ridge and measure wear. I knew the measurements were not too accurate, but they gave me a good idea as to how much wear there was and where the wear was the worst.

After that, I machined the saddle and built it back up. See my thread here:
Repair of Monarch Series 60/61 Saddle Using Moglice

I also did a lot of work on the gearbox and headstock shifter packing:
Monarch Ser.60 Gearbox Removal Illustrated
Monarch Model 61 Apron Worm Assembley Repairs
Packing arrangement around gear shift shafts - 16 CY

You may find that it is challenging to machine the base of the tailstock and get it parallel with the ways.
It is also difficult to get the cross slide to angle into the headstock by a few thousandths.

Good luck.

 

[nt1953]

If I did not goof the numbers up in all the reworking confusion, this may be helpful to some:

Gearbox seals
H98 - replace with National 471554 or CR7513
H-112 - replace with National 471442 or CR4985
J69 - replace with National 471554 or CR7513
J83 - replace with National 4717187 or CR12530

Gearbox misc
J68 bushing – replace with McMaster Carr 6381K192
J85 O-ring – replace with McMaster Carr 2418T185

Taper attachment bearings
AA2 – single row standard bearing (old # 77500/3200) 6200
AA10 – double row standard bearing (old # 55500) 5200

Cross feed bearings and seals
Bearings – angular contact high precision (old # 0L01) 7001
Seal – National 471281 or CR 5662

My lathe:

 

[texasgeartrain]

You may find that the unused flats beside the v-ways are better surfaces to check things with than the tailstock flat and v-way.
I decided not to attempt to grind the bed but to remove the ridges on the bed and rework everything else. Here are a couple of pictures of my slide:


View attachment 329331 View attachment 329332


All I did was remove the ridge and measure wear. I knew the measurements were not too accurate, but they gave me a good idea as to how much wear there was and where the wear was the worst.

You have a lot of good info in your two posts, I appreciate it. I thought I read the packing gland info, and was wondering where, as I'm messing with a fork in the headstock, and will most likely need to reseal the packing gland.

I like your set up for a sled/trolley. I have been thinking of using the sides, outside of ways as you did for more stability. But I'm not there yet, and need to do some testing as I get set up.

Your intention was a little different in that you were looking to remove a ridge. And you are set up with a small grinding wheel.

In post #2, two of the guys I referenced, 4GSR and dsergison also used smaller grinding wheels. I plan on writing about this more in detail later. But my first thought is it takes a lot of patience to use small wheels. Surface, O.D., or I.D. grinders, none really hog of material. But the way you use a surface grinder or O.D. grinder with larger wheels can get a bit more depth of cut than the smaller ID size wheels. And I think the finish can come a bit cleaner.

My intention right now is to use a 6" wheel. I may go bigger, but I'll try the 6" first. I want to be able to down feed and cross feed, in similar fashion as a surface grinder. I'll be bringing quite a bit of weight to my trolley, in part for stability/rigidity, but also to hold and use the grinder.

 

[nt1953]

Homemade bed lathe part 1 - YouTube

Also look at part 2.