What's new
What's new

Ornamental Turning Lathe by Richard Roberts

Asquith

Diamond
Joined
Mar 3, 2005
Location
Somerset, UK
RobertsOT08_zps3fe7bc44.jpg


RobertsOT02_zps4cdafe7f.jpg


RobertsOT10_zps46e569a3.jpg




Some will be familiar with the work of Richard Roberts. He was one of the most influential British inventors and machine makers of the first half of the 19th century. Photos of his surprisingly modern-looking lathe here, bearing the date 1817:-

http://www.practicalmachinist.com/vb/antique-machinery-history/very-old-lathe-114230/


I recently visited Manchester's excellent Museum of Science & Industry (MoSI). The museum houses a Collections Centre where many non-displayed items are stored, and which is open to visitors at certain times of the week. It was closed when I went there, but fortunately a recent acquisition had been placed by a window and illuminated so that it could be seen by visitors. It was this ornamental turning lathe made by Richard Roberts.

This was a very pleasant surprise, especially as I was unaware of any other Richard Roberts lathes being in captivity, let alone on display. The lathe was probably made between 1817 and 1822.

I'll also start a separate thread on the Sharp, Roberts 1835 slotting machine now on open display at the museum.

Roberts’ first(?) 1817 planing machine has survived, but I suspect it wasn’t used on this lathe: the narrowness of the four flat horizontal ways suggests they were like that to minimise the amount of chipping, filing and scraping.

I’ll say a bit more about the background later, but I’m hoping that you will do the talking.

I’ll post more photos of the compound, as there are some curious features which I don’t understand.
 

Optional headstock



It’s good find a museum that appreciates the significance of historical machine tools. This is in contrast to the important 'Johnson Jex' lathe which used to be displayed in a museum in Norwich, and which was the subject of a thread here a few years ago. I'll say no more about that for the moment.
 
Asquith,

What a beauty, thanks for posting these photos. As usual, my first thoughts are to wonder about its history.

Then after wondering about the double-handled? slide, I couldn't help notice the tailstock, not just because of its very nice design and pleasing looks, but because the locking system (to the lathe bed) has been copied and applied to my lathe built some 150 years later. And it is the nicest design I have used - with one hand you can wind, lock or unlock, then slide the tailstock, very useful when drilling deep holes, you can slide the whole unit to clear the drill rather than winding it in and out.

Apologies for posting this modern drawing in such venerable company, but it shows how Graziano were happy to use Mr Roberts locking design!

Adding: the locking lever turns the shaft, which has an eccentric to raise or lower the clamp, very effective on a light lathe.


SAG 12 42 small.jpg
 
Peter,

Of all the features of the compound slide that puzzle me, I hadn’t even appreciated that the presence of two handwheels on one leadscrew! It seems to have an incredibly fine thread, so perhaps you’d want to change hands during the long-winded winding process!

Regarding the history, this has yet to be investigated. The lathe is a very recent acquisition.
 
That is fantastic, Thank you for sharing it! Roberts was quite a guy and certainly warranted Hill's book published by Landmark in 2002 (do you have that book?) I wish there more books like this giving credit to those engineers that did so much. In doing a quick look before my coffee I don't see anything about a lathe like this however he did make a tiny machine for drilling watch plates in addition the huge machinery that came from his factory.
 
Rivett,

I have the Richard Hills book, and don’t recall any reference to him making O.T. lathes. He does mention that Roberts first set up business in Manchester as a plain and eccentric turner.

The basic design of the headstock and tailstock (apart from the shift lever) is typical of many British lathes of the Georgian era. However, the 'optional headstock' is interesting. It has two main bearings instead of 'one main plus a thrust/steady bearing'. It makes me wonder whether it was intended for cutting short screws, using the principle of the spindle being moved axially by a master screw attached to the outboard end of the spindle, guided by a follower located where the shiny block is bolted here:-

 
Paul,

Life and Inventions of Richard Roberts 1789 - 1864 by Rev Dr Richard L Hills, Landmark Publishing, 2002. ISBN 1-84306-027-2

John
 
Comment by Rivett
"It makes me wonder whether it was intended for cutting short screws, using the principle of the spindle being moved axially by a master screw attached to the outboard end of the spindle, guided by a follower located where the shiny block is bolted here"

Reply
Correct. Holtzapffel & Co used this method for cutting short screws. They called this type a 'Screw-Mandrel' headstock.

Screw-cutting assembly sf.jpg

John Edwards Home
 
The circa 1950 ManSon miniature lathes also had the bed clamping lever on the right end of the tailstock. It is a good design, but not common.

Larry

ManSon 2.jpg
 
John

Many thanks for the information. It is a fact that Roberts worked for Holtzapffel for a short time.

There’s some fascinating stuff on your website. Have you seen the machines in the preserved workshop at the Museum of the Jewellery Quarter in Birmingham? A fascinating place, with several machines of various ages used for machining dies for medallions, etc.

Also, are you aware of the rose engine at Calderdale Industrial Museum in Halifax? Featured in post #28 here:-

http://www.practicalmachinist.com/v...lderdale-industrial-museum-248323/index2.html

.......................................
Not much discussion ensued about that machine, and in fact my attempts to goad people into commenting on the features of the compound slide on the Richard Roberts lathe have had very limited success! I wanted to resist making too much input myself, but I’ll just make the following observations:

Lack of tool height adjustment.
Method of adjusting dovetail clearance.
Purpose of the horizontal flat bar at the front.
Purpose of horizontal bar at the side (depth stop?).
Purpose of tapped holes in hand wheel (for handles, presumably?).
 
Asquith, why is the mandrel stepped twice in part protruding through the back bearing on the screw cutting headstock? Also, what is the purpose on the "shiny block"-if the bore in it fits the second step on mandrel then that would allow two fixed positions as well as "float" for threading. Should there be a sleeve as with Holtz. to secure mandrel in it's fully back position?
Richard
 
Ruston,

I don’t know. The missing bits would tell us! Particularly useful would be whatever it was that screwed into the hole on the shiny block (I’m assuming that it’s a tapped hole).

In studying that headstock, I feel that it’s a later addition. Clearly it must have been made for this lathe, but the design of the casting is different, and it isn’t finished to ‘gentleman’s lathe’ standards. Also, the spindle runs directly in the casting (i.e. no bronze bearings).
 
very very cool. things like this are one of the reasons i joined this forum. thanks for posting. i really wish we could have seen these guys at work. makes ya feel kinda spoiled with all the equipment at our disposal today.
 
Asquith,

Thanks for the photos - a very interesting old lathe.

One thing puzzles me. There is a stepped pulley to the left of the main drive pulley on the treadle shaft, presumably to drive the screw mandrel headstock. Contrary to the usual arrangement, the multi step pulleys on both the treadle shaft and the screw mandrel headstock shaft have the smaller ends facing the headstock end of the lathe. This would supply only a small range of slow speeds for thread cutting, which, I suppose, is what would be required, but it would also seem to need either a separate belt for each pair of pulley steps, or some way to make a considerable adjustment to the effective belt length to suit the variations in pulley step sizes with this arrangement.

Would I be right in assuming that the stepped pulley on the tailstock end of the treadle shaft would be to drive an overhead shaft to power rotary cutting tools etc?

franco
 
Very interesting lathe, quite advanced features to bed and stand. The oldest example I can find that has the makers name in raised lettering cast in is in Steed's book. a Whitworth lathe dated 1843. I have blown up the lathe bed picture but may have misinterpreted what I see? Can I see small brackets in the bed casting, towards tailstock end of the bed? Earliest lathes I have owned, Holtzapffel & Deyerlein and Muckle had none nor has my later Goyen. Andrew.
 
Franco,

Good points about the pulleys.

I suppose it’s just possible that at some point the wooden pulley on the screwcutting headstock might have been removed and put back on the wrong way round?? Otherwise, as you suggest, belt changing would involve a lot of work for little return!

Incidentally, although I haven’t really studied treadle lathes, I have noticed on some that the crankshaft bearing at the pulley end can be readily slid up and down for belt tensioning.

Andrew,

I can point you to a Whitworth lathe with the maker’s name cast in the bed, and an early date - 1839! It’s not a million miles from you, at the Long Shop Museum in Leiston, Suffolk. They also have a Pfeil treadle lathe (which, incidentally, has two distinctive sets of drive pulleys, both at the headstock end).

The big Roberts lathe in the Science Museum has the date 1817 clearly stamped on the cross slide. (Of course this doesn't mean that the lathe in its entirety is that old).

I can’t see the brackets to which you refer on the bed. Can you pinpoint where you’re looking?
 
Asquith, yr second photo gives a tailstock view in which the RH end of tailstock shows what looks like a small "bracket" casting supporting the underside of the rear lathe way and I think I can see hints of similar structures in yr other photos viz photo no 6. I thought when I first saw the photos of this lathe that it was later, say post 1830 mainly because I presumed that the castings of bed and legs looked that way. I can accept the headstock and tailstock as reflecting earlier lathe design, though the second headstock seems to be more of a modified 'common' headstock. Thanks for hint re Leiston Whitworth, I'll visit as soon as it gets a bit warmer here. Andrew.
 








 
Back
Top