sorry can't help but just had chuckle.

my 7 yr daughter looked at pics and said that naughty man isn't wearing goggles.

That's because he's the Invincible Man

Not an ML1. Headstock is't cast as one. However the link has this image.

I see an atleast passing similarity in the countershaft.

Perhaps a Zyto or Gamage look-a-likes of the 1940/55 era ?

Photo #2: Absolutely no risk of eye injury. Must remember to use my lathe like this (or maybe not, I can't see anything without glasses if it's closer than the sun).

They were also used for skimming commutators on dynamos and starter motors before it became economical to buy reconditioned units. Also, many of the older garages – my grandfather's included – grew out of engineering businesses, and retained such machine tools as they had.

As for the lathe in the film, my Zyto (and all the others I have seen) was not a cantilever bed and had a much lighter bed casting. The ML4 was by far the most common Myford model. The bed looks too long for the ML1 and ML2. The ML3 with separate headstock was only made between 1937 and 1941. The tailstock clamp is correct for the later ML4 with, as far as I can see, an upper adjustment screw and a lower clamp. The backgear guard isn't a standard Myford one, but they weren't supplied fitted until relatively late, so many people would have made a 'hum grumit' one (remember that?). The backgear lever is pointing vertically downward, which I've never seen, but it may be possible with a non-Myford guard. There is a whole host of other details consistent with the ML4, so my vote is for Myford ML4 or a very close copy.

George

Nevermind the goggles, look at those belts on the example! They're all twisted, it'd be unfortunate to get caught up in all that.

Michael W

Surely this is the same lathe as in the OP photo? Not just the countershaft is the same, but bolted on headstock and the tailstock has the same curved upright below the quill and that rather unique locking lever on the tailstock quill.

Michael, the twisted belt is a mechanical means of reversing the lathe. Lift the motor untwist the belt put it back on the pulley, lo and behold the lathe runs in the opposite direction.

Who doesn't I guess? In the days of yore management wasn't filled with so much theory and efficiency garble, and were actually from a stock of people who worked from the ground up rather than railroaded from university courses.

Definitely wouldn't build a set for this and probably is/was a real location with perhaps a few extras bundled for the sake of the plot. However that said, it Is increasingly difficult to justify expenditure on anything when everyones looking to save 1 or 2% on skimming everything down to a skeleton. Why not just accept that some things have to cost and are worth it.

Thanks for explaining the belt twist by the way.

Michael W

.

John,

Check George's latest photo … it should clarify what you thought you saw.

MichaelG.