Clarke milling attachment

[Dave Jones 1Participant @davejones1]

Morning all,

After reading the latest ME I see that the next issue contains an article on fitting a clarke milling attachment to a drummond lathe.  This is the second article in the last few months about fitting a clarke milling attachment (please dont think im complaining in anyway!!), but I was just wondering…  As the prices for the clarke milling attachment and the Sieg X1 mill are around about in the same ball park, why would you choose the milling attachment over a stand alone machine (ignoring the obvious space advantage).  As im still new to ME I was just wondering what the advantages of a lathe/mill were over a stand alone mill.

[Dave Jones 1Participant @davejones1]

[John HaineParticipant @johnhaine32865]

Frankly, I would just get an X1 mill and not bother with trying to add an attachment to an older lathe.  The X1 with the long table from Arc Euro Trade is quite a nice machine and will take much bigger workpieces than a lathe saddle, and as you say the price is at least in the same ballpark.  I just bought an X1 for conversion to CNC because I didn’t want to risk messing up my Myford VMB (and the latter is also a very heavy machine to work on), and I think that though it has a few limitations it’s a nice bit of kit.

 

John.

[CirclipParticipant @circlip]

To answer the question you arsked Dave, it IS a space saving exercise and DESPITE what many say, yer pays YOUR money and takes yer choice. My Lathe has a milling attachment fastened to it and is the ORIGINAL that all the far Easterns have copied.

 

  An before the screamers get in amongst, it does everything I WANT IT TO DO. Can direct you to many sites where the machine that gets lots of derision from all the experts, namely the “Combi” machine with the mill/drill head on the headstock, has been used to create far better pieces than some with all the latest gizmoes.

 

  And don’t forget, size ISN’T everything.

 

  Regards  an.

[mgjParticipant @mgj]

Size may not be everything, but its very handy, especially in a mill where the extra rigidity pays.

 

Also you can as they say, do small work on a big machine, but you can’t do big work on a littl’un. But thats only true up to a point, because there comes a stage were larger equipment really does become unsuitable or unwieldy.  But, within the normal span of modelling, bigger is usually better – more flexible for coping with future expansion? (Unless you are prepared to sub particular bits out, which is another option)

 

If you can afford it, or have the space, then go for the separate milling machine, just for the convenience and capacity. If you have difficulties, then  do the modification. There will be limitations, of course, but mostly you will be able to make up for that with lighter cuts, resorting to jiggery pokery, and putting up with inconvenience. As long as, in general, the equipment is sized for the models or engineering you want to do.

 

I have no experience of working with the combi machine personally (and this is a combi machine of sorts),  – clearly they are not ideal as mills, if only because the saddle gibs tend to be quite short and the x slide fairly narrow, relative to the loads when compared to a dedicated mill – nor is the bed as rigid.

 

However, for the person who has a bit of a space problem they represent a great gain in capacity. I saw a 5″ loco – quite a big model of a narrow gauge type, which had been (very well ) built on one. Passenger hauling all day having great fun. I think that the machine had been set up in a spare bedroom – indoors anyway.  He couldn’t have built it without such a compact and flexible package, so who is to knock it in the circumstances.

[Author]

Posts