Workshop Practice series books

[V8EngParticipant @v8eng]

Today I received an email from Chronos stating they have many of these books in stock.

Thought it might be of interest, so linky to the site here:-

https://www.chronos.ltd.uk/product-category/engineering-books-dvds/books/workshop-practice-series/?mc_cid=18b6a83c04&mc_eid=96077822e2

[Chris CrewParticipant @chriscrew66644]

These books are generally excellent and the information they contain is timeless. However,  some are in need of seriously updating and revision because technology has moved on. I noticed on a stall at the Midlands show that the one on CAD displays a cover picture showing a desktop out of the ark. Whether its contents has been updated I cannot say but I suspect not.

[Chris Crew]

On Chris Crew Said:

However,  some are in need of seriously updating and revision because technology has moved on.

By whom? Not only has the technology moved on, but many of the authors have passed on.

[EmgeeParticipant @emgee]

I accept the books may be old hat but still contain very helpful information for beginners just starting in the hobby, also many have references that will still be valid, and they don’t cost a fortune, less than 2 ME’s.

Emgee

[Chris CrewParticipant @chriscrew66644]

“By whom? Not only has the technology moved on, but many of the authors have passed on.”

I should be very surprised if there is no one capable of up-dating these publications where necessary. As far as CAD and CNC are concerned there must be many knowledgeable and literate people in this very forum but it would need commitment and investment by the publisher to put things in train.

“I accept the books may be old hat but still contain very helpful information for beginners just starting in the hobby, also many have references that will still be valid, and they don’t cost a fortune, less than 2 ME’s.”

I did not say the books were ‘old hat’, I stated that the information they contain was generally ‘timeless’ which indeed it is. The calculations and formulae for gearing and screw-cutting, for example, are immutable and I refer to them in these books whenever necessary. The books have certainly enabled me to do things in the workshop that I would not have thought possible until I was encouraged to try by the original authors. But technology does progress and the amateur workshop is not immune to changes in techniques, materials and tooling and it just struck me, looking at the picture of a very dated computer on the cover of one of the books, that certain areas of certain books would benefit from some revision to maintain their relevance.

 

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

I know the CAD book you mean, and yes the cover illustration is of about 1990s vintage so may deter some buyers. Even I, hardly Alan Turing v.2024, queried it when I bought my copy at the TEE stand a few years ago. Very helpfully but slightly embarrassingly one of the staff winkled the author out from behind his own society stand, and he came over and explained that despite appearances, the basic principles of CAD, at least in 2-dimensions, are still much the same. I have also bought a much newer book from the same sellers, and if you can forgive its British author and publisher spelling “metre” the American way, this does cover modern CAD aspects such as 3D-modelling and rendering.

However we should bear in mind that no-one can be expected to write a book on any advanced software without needing be very generic, and pointing out that although each make of CAD reaches the same ends, their tools and specific procedures are highly individual.

So although a cover photograph of a PC some 30 years old might be unwise for selling any introductory book on serious software, much of the contents is still relevant at that introductory level. You also need the specific tutorials for your chosen make of software, but those might not explain general CAD principles. Those still apply: what’s happened is that the software has grown much more powerful and flexible in that thirty years, with lots of extra new tools to use.

 

And no, I didn’t ask the writer to autograph my copy…

 

As for guides to other engineering processes – turning, soldering, etc – those techniques have not evolved greatly but the two areas I do not recollect being covered is that of sheet metalwork and carbide tooling.

There is a Workshop Practice Series one on basic sheet-work; but I don’t think it went much further than mallets and blocks of wood in vices. It may have showed developments, I can’t remember, but since I also wanted advice on using a tinman’s jenny, rolls, bar- and tube- benders, forming locked seams, bending allowances and suchlike, I was disappointed.

While it’s clear from enquiries on this Forum that using insert tooling is almost an art itself – hardly surprising because what we buy for our hobby are the seller’s best choices for our typical uses, from an utterly bewildering range of expensive little bits of tungsten-carbide ceramic with long code-“names”. Try something like the ‘Sandvik’ catalogue and you will see what I mean – complete with tool lives quoted in tens of minutes not exhibition intervals. It’s not helped when some respondents become rather dogmatic, almost telling the tyro, “Throw all that HHS stuff away, buy a hundred-quid’s worth of inserts and slave-drive your lathe at flat-out speeds and feeds”! Poor lathe, and poor savings-account. (I do use both HSS and carbide – and often at similar cutting rates.)

 

So here’s a challenge:

A book on proper sheet-metal, bar and tube forming tools and methods, an area oddly neglected in model engineering literature; though it may be more applicable for our non-model, model-engineering.

A book on insert tooling, explaining for a start what all those letters and numbers mean…*

 

I know… “Go on then, write them then!”

Wot, me Guv? It’s me who needs read ’em!

 

*Oh, and caveat emptor. We exhibition attendees are prone to buying perhaps 5 at a time of tips packed by the manufacturers in 10s, leaving the seller having to use an irregular set of emptied boxes whose coded labels are not necessarily those of what we buy. So ask what the code is for your purchases, and make a note, for future reference.

[noel shelleyParticipant @noelshelley55608]

I have around 10 of these books, One should look on them as very useful tasters and at less than £8 each very good value. That some of the info may be dated is true but one is a hobbyist, not a factory manager trying to meet production figures.

The 2 done on foundrywork ( Nos 4 & 25 ) No4 uses Coke, a fuel not easy to get now, but the principals are little changed. Charcoal is an option, so is old oil, though propane is in my opinion quicker and easy + readily available. No 25 looks at the use of electricity for melting lowish temp metals, below 800c.  As to updating, myself and 2 other well known authors had considered writing a modern book on this subject and I had approached a UK publishing house. It would have been 3 mens ideas as to the setting up and operating of a small foundry for the hobbyist.The advice was that in the changing world we live in our efforts would be unlikely to cover even our costs not to mention the considerable work and the idea sadly given up. Ah well. Noel.

[Nigel Graham 2]

On Nigel Graham 2 Said:

I know the CAD book you mean, and yes the cover illustration is of about 1990s vintage so may deter some buyers. Even I, hardly Alan Turing v.2024, queried it when I bought my copy at the TEE stand a few years ago. Very helpfully but slightly embarrassingly one of the staff winkled the author out from behind his own society stand, and he came over and explained that despite appearances, the basic principles of CAD, at least in 2-dimensions, are still much the same. …

 

So although a cover photograph of a PC some 30 years old might be unwise for selling any introductory book on serious software, much of the contents is still relevant at that introductory level. You also need the specific tutorials for your chosen make of software, but those might not explain general CAD principles. Those still apply: what’s happened is that the software has grown much more powerful and flexible in that thirty years, with lots of extra new tools to use.

 

And no, I didn’t ask the writer to autograph my copy…

I fell off my chair reading Nigel recommending this book.  Partly because Nigel has a long track record of struggling to learn CAD, and partly because the book is badly out-of-date.   Not the author’s fault because CAD and computers develop far faster than mechanical tools; whilst a Myford designed during WW2 is still hot to trot in 2024, the same can’t be said of 1980’s CAD software, where progress and change is still rapid!    I found the CAD book unhelpful as a starter.  What do others make of it?

That said, I feel the Workshop Series CAD book is the exception that proves the rule.  In general I highly recommend the Workshop Series.  Don’t expect them to get into advanced work though – they’re aimed at Model Engineers not professionals.   But what they do provide is excellent, and focussed better on my needs than the same information on the web.  Well worth learners buying the books that cover your area of interest.

 

As for guides to other engineering processes – turning, soldering, etc – those techniques have not evolved greatly but the two areas I do not recollect being covered is that of sheet metalwork and carbide tooling.

There is a Workshop Practice Series one on basic sheet-work; but I don’t think it went much further than mallets and blocks of wood in vices. It may have showed developments, I can’t remember, but since I also wanted advice on using a tinman’s jenny, rolls, bar- and tube- benders, forming locked seams, bending allowances and suchlike, I was disappointed.

Nigel expects too much of a slim basic introduction!

While it’s clear from enquiries on this Forum that using insert tooling is almost an art itself – hardly surprising because what we buy for our hobby are the seller’s best choices for our typical uses, from an utterly bewildering range of expensive little bits of tungsten-carbide ceramic with long code-“names”. Try something like the ‘Sandvik’ catalogue and you will see what I mean – complete with tool lives quoted in tens of minutes not exhibition intervals.

Unlike HSS, information about carbide inserts is aimed squarely at production engineers.  Science not art.   Their job is to maximise output whilst minimising cost, which generally means cutting flat-out all the time. In this environment Carbide cutters last tens of minutes, whilst HSS either cuts for tens of seconds or fails instantly.  Inserts are selected by establishing the required production parameters and asking the supplier, or by entering requirements into a paid for spreadsheet.     Hobby machinists rarely cut metal at production rates, and we don’t have access to optimisation software. We break the rules too: a trick that works well for Model Engineers is turning mild-steel with uncoated inserts designed for non-Ferrous metals.  Buying inserts by number from a catalogue is a minefield.  One easy answer is to buy inserts from ArcEuro.  They only sell insert types that experience shows work well in hobby circumstances.

It’s not helped when some respondents become rather dogmatic, almost telling the tyro, “Throw all that HHS stuff away, buy a hundred-quid’s worth of inserts and slave-drive your lathe at flat-out speeds and feeds”! Poor lathe, and poor savings-account. (I do use both HSS and carbide – and often at similar cutting rates.)

I don’t remember anyone saying that!  Could it be that HSS fans are reading between the lines?    More accurately, carbide is simply more convenient than HSS, for example inserts pretty much do away with the need for a QCTP, and much reduce the need to learn grinding skills. Shocking I know, but plenty of beginners struggle with grinding.

Ideally, inserts should be operated at production rates, but that needs a powerful rigid machine and high RPM, and those are rare in home workshops.   Far Eastern lathes tend to work with inserts better than classic machines because their being a later design comes with comparatively high RPM.  As inserts don’t shine on a speed restricted classic machine, HSS will be the best choice for them.   Otherwise, inserts are a ‘good thing’.

I use inserts about 80% of the time, but don’t hesitate to switch to HSS when it suits the job.  Sometimes easier to get a good finish with HSS, and HSS can be ground to cut form shapes.

 

So here’s a challenge:

A book on proper sheet-metal, bar and tube forming tools and methods, an area oddly neglected in model engineering literature; though it may be more applicable for our non-model, model-engineering.

A book on insert tooling, explaining for a start what all those letters and numbers mean…*

 

I know… “Go on then, write them then!”

Wot, me Guv? It’s me who needs read ’em!

No problem Nigel:  wrap a wet towel round your head and do the research.  Hard work unfortunately…

 

…

I owe a lot to L.H Sparey.  The only problem with “The Amateur’s Lathe” is he wrote it before Inserts, Digital, CAD and other advances were available.  Perhaps the answer is to bring Sparey up to date by adding a few new Chapters.

Dave

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

I don’t see how inserts diminish the advantage of a QCTP. Suppose you want to make several off bushes. That’s at least 3 tools, turning the OD boring the hole and parting off. You could add a chamfering tool. Without a QCTP you lose the tool setting every time you change tools. I suppose you could get by with a 4 way tool post, but I lost count of the number of times I spiked my hand on sharp sticky out tools.

[CirclipParticipant @circlip]

“but I lost count of the number of times I spiked my hand on sharp sticky out tools.”

Did you get the echo from Sir John!

CLUMSEY B*****D

 

Regards  Ian.

[mgnbukParticipant @mgnbuk]

I don’t see how inserts diminish the advantage of a QCTP

But Dave cannot be persuaded to see the advantages of a QCTP, Duncan.

I have tried & failed to do so previously !

The Workshop Practice series of books still have a place, as does Sparey. Of their time, maybe, but there are still nuggets to be gleaned from their pages at little more than the current cost of a magazine.

Nigel B.

[CirclipParticipant @circlip]

Teknowleggy may have advanced but the BASICS still apply.

Regards  Ian.

[mgnbuk]

On mgnbuk Said:

I don’t see how inserts diminish the advantage of a QCTP

But Dave cannot be persuaded to see the advantages of a QCTP, Duncan.

I have tried & failed to do so previously !

…

Nigel B.

Well, I was half persuaded Nigel.

Inserts without a QCTP work like this:

• They are accurately made to a specification so when one breaks or wears out in the holder, the insert is swapped in the holder, and work resumes.  The holder and tool setting are not disturbed.  No need for a QCTP.
• Inserts are mounted in precision made tool-holders.  Easy to pre-shim these to height so they too can be swapped in an ordinary 4-way tool-post without fuss.   Slower than a QCTP, but not much, and shims are dirt cheap.

QCTPs shine when used with HSS because they reduce set up time.   But the need to adjust set-up frequently is an HSS shortcoming due to HSS cutters having to be re-sharpened.   Taking them off to the grinder still in their QCTP holder helps, but after the cutter has been reground, still has to be reset to centre height.  QCTP holders help by providing a fine adjustment, but remember a pre-shimmed carbide insert doesn’t need it!  HSS is slower than carbide inserts when grind and reset times are taken into account.  Inserts aren’t resharpened.

I don’t claim that shimmed inserts in a 4-way tool-post are faster than a QCTP when several pre-set QC holders are to hand and ready to go.  I do suggest that the advantages of QCTPs are less than many owners believe, and that a 4-way is ‘good enough’ for most purposes.  As usual we have these debates without measuring anything.   Be interesting to race a pair of identical lathes, one fitted with a QCTP and the other with a 4-way and pre-shimmed inserts.  The answer recorded by a man with a clipboard and stop-watch, not by our theorising!

From the comfort of my armchair though, a 4-way can always mount 2 tools simultaneously, and if only these 2 are needed a 4-way will outperform a QCTP because spinning is faster than detach/attach.   Up to 4 tools simultaneously in a 4-way TP are possible, but I avoid for H&S reasons.

Gets more interesting in a race when 5 or more tools are needed.  As I rarely do that kind of work at speed, I’ve not felt the urge to splash a couple of hundred of My Precious on a post and set of holders.  This may be because my workshop supports experimental work not making locos!  That I don’t need a QCTP doesn’t mean that everyone else is wasting their money on them.   Likewise, Nigel and Duncan benefitting from their QCTPs, does not mean I need one!

Back to the race.  A great deal depends on how many tool changes are needed to complete the part.  If many tool changes are needed, a QCTP should win, but the advantage will be smaller if tools are changed infrequently.   It boils down to attach/detach QCTP holder time vs how long it takes to slacken and re-tighten two or three 4-way TP clamp screws.  The latter will be slower, but not much.  I decided a QCTP set-up is moderately expensive, doesn’t help me much, and I have better things to spend my dosh on.

Another point if I may!  Not unusual for members to raise QCTP problems on the forum.  Loads of them!   Will it fit on my lathe? AXA, 0XA or what?  How do I machine this QCTP to fit on my cross-slide?  What size tools will this particular QCTP be able to place at centre height?    Help,  I bought non-standard holders years ago, now unobtainium.  Wedge vs Piston?  How many holders are needed? (Lots!).

Have to say sorting out a QCTP seems a lot of angst compared with making do with a 4-way and some simple shimming!  Plus there’s a distinct possibility that a 4-way TP will be more rigid than a QCTP – anyone measured that with a DTI?

Dave

[mgnbukParticipant @mgnbuk]

Plus there’s a distinct possibility that a 4-way TP will be more rigid than a QCTP – anyone measured that with a DTI?

Actually found the exact opposite with my Boxford CUD, Dave.

That machine came with the standard Boxford 4 way indexing toolpost & it could be seen to flex when grooving / parting with my Mark 1 eyeballs – no DTI required ! Fitted a Boxford branded Dickson QCTP & it was rock steady – no more dig-ins when grooving & better surface finish.

Most of the sizing related QCTP questions that pop up on here could be easily resolved by a bit of reading of the QCTP system spec sheets & a couple of measurements from the lathe concerned – it isn’t rocket science !

Type of system is mostly a matter of personal preference, depth of pocket & local availability. My personal preference,  given depth of pocket restrictions and a specific requirement on my Warco, was a Dickson style – without the depth of pocker restriction I would have gone Multifix – so neither wedge or piston !

How many holders ? I only had 2 standard + parting holder for the Boxford & managed – having more just makes life a bit quicker/easier/less faffy.

But we have been here before, have we not ? (Failed to insert “smiley” here ! )

Not sure if there is a Workshop Practice Series book on alternative lathe tool holding system pros & cons, though.

Nigel B.

[derek hall 1Participant @derekhall1]

Without straying too far off topic, I currently only use inserts for internal and external thread cutting. I am if truth be told, very confused about the different types and grades of insert tooling.

I use a Dickson style QC tool post with HSS with my Myford.

I realise that now and again HSS tooling just needs a touch on the grinder to keep its sharpness, but HSS does give you the chance to make or modify a cutter for a “special”.

I am not totally convinced by my Dickson tooling though at their ability to retain centre height when the tool holder is removed from the tool post. Not only that, but there is a greater overhang when compared to a bog standard 4 way tool post, but it’s the faff with shims that puts me off. I had enough of that when I was an apprentice last century.

I am looking at the piston or wedge type of toolpost though.

However, I don’t take huge cuts on cast iron or plan on building a 4 inch scale traction engine, or making thousands of widgets a day. I make one off tools and repair and make clocks, so its horses for courses.

I have loads of HSS blanks and odd shaped tooling that I will continue to use as I don’t feel the need yet to change over to insert tooling, plus my newly built Quorn will sharpen my HSS tools to any shape or size.

Going back to the “books”, time marches on, and some of the books have dated badly, but the books written by Tubal Cain aka T D Walshaw still contain information that is relevant and essential for model engineers both for the experienced and for the novice.

 

 

[noel shelleyParticipant @noelshelley55608]

One of the most useful books I have and use all the time, is Tubal Cains Model engineers handbook. It covers so many subjects. Noel.

[DiogenesParticipant @diogenes]

Apologies for drifting, but to answer Derek’s query the difference is that the wedge type uses a taper gib to pull the holder against the post, whilst the piston type pushes the holder out against the dovetails; (almost an ‘unnatural act’, in my opinion..). The wedge type I have is very solid and repeatable.

For everyday turning, facing, and boring I have mostly standardised my tooling to use CCMT (or CCGT) tips – I use on 10/12mm shanks, so CCMT060204; these would be also suitable for 8 or 6mm shanks.

(- the last ‘4’ digit in these designations is tip radius, choices are 0.2, 0.4, 0.8mm)

The difference between ‘MT’ and ‘GT’ is that MT are Moulded, for heavier work in ferrous material, and GT are Ground for Non-ferrous material and light / finishing of ferrous.

I see that Jason uses DCMT (or DCGT) tips to benefit from the sharper angle when using tailstock support – the equivalent designation for these is DCMT 070204.

 

[Diogenes]

On Diogenes Said:

Apologies for drifting, but to answer Derek’s query the difference is that the wedge type uses a taper gib to pull the holder against the post, whilst the piston type pushes the holder out against the dovetails; (almost an ‘unnatural act’, in my opinion..). The wedge type I have is very solid and repeatable.

For everyday turning, facing, and boring I have mostly standardised my tooling to use CCMT (or CCGT) tips – I use on 10/12mm shanks, so CCMT060204; these would be also suitable for 8 or 6mm shanks.

(- the last ‘4’ digit in these designations is tip radius, choices are 0.2, 0.4, 0.8mm)

The difference between ‘MT’ and ‘GT’ is that MT are Moulded, for heavier work in ferrous material, and GT are Ground for Non-ferrous material and light / finishing of ferrous.

I see that Jason uses DCMT (or DCGT) tips to benefit from the sharper angle when using tailstock support – the equivalent designation for these is DCMT 070204.

 

Thanks for the clarification.

Perhaps I will buy an insert holder and suitable insert for say brass and have a play.

Regarding a new tool post, wedge it is then!

Just need to amend my letter to the big red man with a white beard…

 

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

Jason tends to use CCGT 060202 (and DCGT 070202) most of the time but the ****08 is useful if you want an internal fillet on a small “cast looking” part.

I’ve given my thoughts on QCTP before so will just say that maybe it is one of the reasons I am quite prolific at knocking out models 😉

[PeteParticipant @pete41194]

I have most of the Workshop Practice books and would very much agree that some of the information is as current today as when they were written. Any of those books that might involve rapid changes in technology, I don’t buy. Most or maybe all of that could instead be found easily today on more specific websites and forums.

And a simple search would turn up dozens if not hundreds of websites explaining what those replaceable tip carbide codes mean. This would be just one found in less than 30 seconds. https://littlemachineshop.com/info/insert_charts.php But every one of the more industrial manufacturer’s will have much the same on there own websites. Oddly and it seems to be rarely mentioned, but the tool holders to use those carbide tips also use a code to identify which tool holder can use which tip design. https://www.mmc-carbide.com/permanent/courses/85/tool-holder-identification-code.html About the only extra information that might also be worth searching for is the different concoctions of the carbide and binders used. Interrupted cutting such as milling has different requirements than continuous turning might for the best durability. But a few searches should also turn that up. Your workshop, your machines and tooling, and you should know best what your doing with each material type on average. So decisions about what type of tool holder and carbide tip are probably best made yourself.

For what we do, it can hardly be compared to what any volume part production manufacturer does today. They can afford to and certainly do test to optimize for there exact material, machines, methods, cutting speeds and feeds, tool lifespan and even surface finish. So at best, an average insert type, possible coating and chip breaker design known to work well on a variety of materials is about all most of us can afford and not do the same very expensive experimentation industry would. An actual book about carbide isn’t required at all for how we might use them. That carbide & tool code explanation also isn’t rocket science and will give most of the information we might need. And as fast as carbide and the coatings change today, any book would be quickly be out of date in just a few short years. That series of letters and numbers are just an industry standard that afaik all replaceable carbide tip manufacturer’s use world wide. Inserts were a much later invention, but I’d bet a lot that the carbide first invented by Henri Moissan back in 1893 has almost no resemblance to what were using today other than the name.

And fwiw, George Thomas was intimately familiar with the benefits of both carbide and qctp’s when used in industry, and had strong opinions against both for use in his own workshop. For the most part and for manual machine tools, I think it would be hard to come up with any strong and logical arguments against what he thought most model engineers really needed. The one exception might be for larger work piece diameters and most of the bench top sized lathes today don’t have a back gear his Myford had. So with the available lowest rpm, and for those larger diameters, carbide might be the only option for some.

 

[OldironParticipant @oldiron]

Nigel Graham 2 said ”

So here’s a challenge:

A book on proper sheet-metal, bar and tube forming tools and methods, an area oddly neglected in model engineering literature; though it may be more applicable for our non-model, model-engineering.”

 

I have 2 books by Tom Lipton which I find very helpful although USA in origin they are still applicable for metalworking in general. Not written for model engineers but the methods and skills still apply

1, Metalworking, Sink or Swim, ISBN 978-0-8311-3362-7

2, Metalworking,Doing it Better, ISBN 978-0-8311-3476-1

I got mine on Amazon UK

[Author]

Posts