Francis W Shaw bench planer

[Rob GoughParticipant @robgough74021]

I’ve recently been reading the Centennial Celebration Collection and came across a July 1899 article by Francis W Shaw, which describes the production of a small bench planer.  It looks like the article may of been part of a series but I can only view the one from July.  The description, drawings and image are very similar to a planer I acquired a couple of years ago, with no manufacturers nameplate (pictures attached).

The article implies that castings and drawings to make the planer were readily available, but it does not say where from.  Can anyone shed any light on this machine?  Could mine be the Francis W Shaw machine, was this a ‘kit’ produced by many model engineers of the time?  Was it something that could be purchased complete or as a kit (like the G P Potts milling/grinding spindles) and if so who supplied it?

[BazParticipant @baz89810]

What a beautiful machine, just crying out for an electric motor conversion!

[Dod MoleParticipant @georgeclarihew]

Seeing that machine reminds me of when I were a young loon (Scots word) I used a planing machine with very similar workings to that machine except it was overhead belt driven and the work table was proper water hydraulic driven back and forth, my machine could handle 9 feet by 5 feet work-pieces.   Gateposts and headstones mostly, it was in a quarry

Happy Days

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

It is beautiful, and very useful, Baz… but conversion? Why?

[Nigel Graham 2]

On Nigel Graham 2 Said:

It is beautiful, and very useful, Baz… but conversion? Why?

Simple, at my age and poor health winding that handle for half an hour would give me half a day out with the undertaker!

[David SeniorParticipant @davidsenior29320]

There is what looks like the same machine at the Amberley Museum in West Sussex.

The oval plate on that one reads ‘Arthur Firth, Engineer’ I think, but I can’t read the rest.

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

Baz –

I know what you mean: I have a Drummond manual shaper, designed to give you a barmaid’s arm-muscles, but I think the planing-machine with its continuously-rotated handle would be the easier to operate!

It looks as if the Amberley Museum machine is used occasionally, but perhaps only for demonstrations.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Surprisingly relevant:

https://www.lathes.co.uk/seniorshaperplaner/

MichaelG.

[David Senior]

On David Senior Said:

There is what looks like the same machine at the Amberley Museum in West Sussex.

Put the two photos side by side and look closely at them.

On the black one, there is an additional shaft in front of the operating handle. On the black one, the columns bolt to the side of the bed casting; on the grey one they bolt to a flat area on top of the bed casting. One is auto-travese, the other is manual traverse.

The curved brace joining the two columns is similar on the two machines, but after that the differences appear.

—

In today’s world, motorising one of them might be easier than in the past. I think it is true to say that to reverse the bed movement on both machines requires turning the handle in the opposite direction. That means any motor drive would need to reverse each cycle (and go faster on the back stroke to the cutting stroke). The motor would also need to spin a variable number of revolutions to vary the stroke as there are no reverse trip dogs, only a feed dog.

With a three phase motor, this would be easier than with a single phase (as single phase motors do not like frequent reversing). With a stepper or servo motor, it would be easier again – in essence, the software that has been developed for dividing head/rotary tables forms the core of the logic. In them the number of divisions determines the number of steps (motor pulses) output; in a planer drive, the length of stroke would determine the number of steps.

[Nigel Graham 2]

On Nigel Graham 2 Said:

..the planing-machine with its continuously-rotated handle…

It is worth taking a good look at the two pictures and trying to determine how they could be made to operate with continuous handle rotation.

That implies a reversing mechanism of some type (q.v. Whitworth quick return in a shaper). It also needs some form of control to tell that mechanism when to operate at both ends of the stroke (stop going forward and start going backward; stop going backward and start going forward).

Looking at the space available and details visible, it is hard to conceive such a mechanism. I wonder what is the analogous trade to the barmaid but which works in a circular clockwise and anticlockwise manner. Maybe a seamstress who does as much backstitching as standard stitching.

[Rob GoughParticipant @robgough74021]

Thanks for all the comments and feedback.

For now I’m happy with the manual operation.  Progress is slow and I might add some power later, but would want to design something that didn’t alter/damage the original structure.  At the moment it is light enough that I can slide it off the bench onto a purpose made trolley to create space in my very compact workshop, so happy to sacrifice speed for flexibility!  However, a automatic step over mechanism is rapidly climbing my priority list.

I use the planer regularly and can attest to it being much less strenuous than my Drummond shaper.

The Arthur Firth and Tom Senior planers definitely seem to share a lot of same styling, although mine does not have the T slot on the side of the table to adjust the travel stops.  There is also a page on lathes.co.uk for Hesketh Walker planers, which also includes a picture of a similar styled machine but with power and auto step over.  From the text on that page I had thought mine was a Hesketh Walker or Liverpool Casting Co model until I found the Francis Shaw article (although I do wonder if the picture on lathes.co.uk has got mixed up in the formatting).  I wonder if there is some link between all of these that lead to an evolution of the design.

If anyone has a full set of 1899 editions I would be interested to know if there where other articles by Francis Shaw on this subject.

Thanks again!

 

[Rob GoughParticipant @robgough74021]

With regard to DC31k’s observations…  The columns have tenons that are a snug fit in grooves machined into the bed casting.  These positively locate the columns for height and squareness to the bed.  This is exactly as described and drawn in the 1899 Francis Shaw article, although the Arthur Firth configuration looks a lit easier!

[DC31kParticipant @dc31k]

There is an online index to Model Engineer (https://www.imes.org.uk/me_index/index.php) that in theory goes back to vol. 1. Searching that might find the specific articles in which you are interested.

That being said, I could not lazily (i.e. by using ‘planer’ as a search term) find the one to which you refer in the initial post. However, if you have details of that article from the Centennial issue, you could see what terms are needed to find it and those same terms might unearth other leads. You can also search under the author’s name.

And I know you do not want to motorise it, but again modern technology would make the auto feed very easy: a stepper motor on the cross-slide controlled by a switch that is triggered at the end of the cutting stroke. That would also make something like flat knurling with a vee tool very simple as it would cope with 1/16″ cross feed as easily as 0.005″.

[David SeniorParticipant @davidsenior29320]

Surprisingly relevant:

https://www.lathes.co.uk/seniorshaperplaner/

MichaelG.

 

Michael,

Not sure whether you were referencing my surname in this ‘Surprisingly relevant’ comment, following my post of the Arthur Firth version, but, regrettably, I have been unable to find any family connections to the Tom Senior, Liversedge company!

Having said that, my family are from that area (until my great-grandfather left in the early 1900s), so you never know, but there were hundreds of Seniors around there at that time (seemingly mainly coal miners)

Dave (Senior)

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

No, David … I was [I hope] referencing the machine under discussion.

[ Confused now … I will check later ]

MichaelG.

.

Edit: __ Perhaps “everybody” was already aware of this:

.

[David SeniorParticipant @davidsenior29320]

Part 1 of the article ‘How To Make A Hand Planing Machine’ is Vol 2, Iss 18, pages 146-148 – to be continued.

Part 2 is in Vol 2, Iss 21, pages 183 – 185 and includes some working drawings. It also says  – to be continued, but I can’t find any more in Vol 2 or Vol 3 (including in the indexes)

Part 1 concludes by saying castings are available from Messrs. F. & H. Shaw Ltd, Hebden Bridge

By coincidence I spotted an advert at the end of Vol 1 for face plates from F. & H. Shaw, Hebden Bridge, so clearly a casting supplier at least during that period.

Dave

[Rob GoughParticipant @robgough74021]

Thanks David Senior, that’s very helpful.  I’ll have to try and get a copy of Vol 2.

[BazyleParticipant @bazyle]

I’m sure I saw an advert a few days ago from one of our current suppliers for shaper castings. Perhaps that design? Apart from the Stuart model one who would be designing one from scratch nowadays? Don’t have time to search at the moment.
I have always wondered why they seem to always have an unusually long shaft on the handle. A bit like some early lathes have overlong cross slide handles. Is it that they are always as per one of the above pictures kept at the back of the bench out of the way.

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

Rob –

Could you please put us out of misery by confirming my thought that you turn the handle in one direction  – the reversing takes care of itself, or both ways as other people think?

I’m sure the huge planing-machines once common industrially used continuous drives, and there’s no reason to think a bench version is any different, but I may be wrong!

If I am right, at least anyone contemplating fitting a motor would not need worry about the motor having to keep reversing, only about reducing the speed to the appropriate one for planing. Maybe about 40-60rpm, thinking about turning the handle at around that rate. Fitting a proper, mechanical auto cross-feed might be relatively simple if the machine lacking such,   was in fact made to accept that as an “optional extra” or “up-market” edition by design.

 

I think if I were to design a bench-sized planing-machine (yes, I do have too much on already to try it) I first thought use a long feed-screw fitted with bevel-gear reverser and clutches, for the table. Equal two-way speed is not important. Shapers’ quick returns are only to raise commercial machining rates.  A better alternative, giving some deceleration and acceleration to all that heavy metal on the move, would be a continuous roller-chain or toothed-belt fitted with a carrier engaging a slotted drop-link fastened to the table, though it may need specially-profiled sprockets.

…..

Bazyle makes a point pertinent to both this and the present arguments elsewhere about what the combined ME /MEW should carry.

The early editions, with & Electrician suffixed to the title, sometimes carried works drawings of assorted machines from machine-tools to main-line locomotives, and it’s possible a planing-machine became featured thus – though I am not sure how you’d search those early archives!

 

I wondered if the long handle was to allow wide work-pieces. Not to give more clutter space as it would in my workshop!

Sizeable bases or bedplates were commonly castings with mounting-bosses for the machine itself, and only those bosses, well within the bed’s total width, needed be planed or milled flat, saving considerable, needless, extra work. For example, those on the cast trays for Drummond lathes, span little over half the width of the tray, and were finished by planing.

The only thing that had to be observed was that the workpiece would pass between the columns.

Then I looked back at the Amberley photograph and realised, no, the shaft is too long for that. It is to clear the mechanism projecting from the end of the cross-slide, with the handle at full stretch! Not ever so good practice, that long overhang, though. It seems to call for an out-rigger journal, perhaps on the stand itself.

 

[… “pass between the columns…”

In the last Century I worked for a printing-machine manufacturer that proudly bought its first CNC milling-machine, then discovered the largest and most complicated work-piece lined up for it, was too wide for it – by less than an Inch.

The part was re-designed. ]

[Rob GoughParticipant @robgough74021]

Nigel – With the planer you do have to rotate the handle both ways.  I find it more awkward to get into a good rhythm with short strokes and the shaper is easier for that type of cut.  However, for longer cuts the planer is easier and faster.  On CI I can take cuts around 10/12 thou and plane 9″/10″ length cuts across ~5″ wide in around 25 minutes with a very fine cross feed to get a good finish.  I usually use the shaper for mild steel but cuts much over 5 thou are hard work, so I tend to rough parts out on the mill and then take 1 or 2 thou cuts on the shaper, with a shearing tool in order to get a nice surface finish more in keeping with the machines I’m restoring.  I think the pinion shaft on the planer is extended simple to give good clearance of the bench and enable space for an optional step over feed mechanism (note also the extension of feed screw).  Also, to work at a good speed for a right handed person, you need to crank the handle with the right hand whilst having your body twisted around to constant hold the feed screw hand wheel with the left, to increment the feed on every back stroke.

Bazyle – I think the long handle on the shaper is purely a mechanical consideration in that you need the leverage to cut.

I wouldn’t be without the shaper or planer, but they are not for everyone!

 

[BazyleParticipant @bazyle]

Thanks, I hadn’t considered the cross slide handle projection. I’d have put the handle right at the front end to give clearance.
I mentioned a recent paper advert and just can’t find it in recent MEW/ME somehow but online it is at http://www.theengineersemporium.com/catalogue-pages/workshopequipmentcastings.htm# click on the camera. Very similar to the other pictures. Pity the castings are so expensive. How many pages of ME&W would I have to stretch it to to cover that as a build series! (be really cool to machine the table on my friend’s 3ft planer)

[Rob GoughParticipant @robgough74021]

Thanks for the link Bazyle.  Nice looking project, but more than double what I paid for mine!

David – I’ve continued to research F&H Shaw Ltd.  FW Shaw, who wrote the ME articles, was the son of JH Shaw, hence the company name.  I obtained a copy of an obituary for FW, written by his daughter.  FW held some senior positions in a number of engineering companies around the Midlands and NW up until and including WWII.  He died in 1963.  JH Shaw was killed in an industrial accident in 1900 and I wonder if that is why there was no third article on the planer as F&H Shaw Ltd does not feature prominently in FW’s obituary.

[Author]

Posts