Help needed with Wolf Jahn tailstock

dave-b

Registered User
Jul 28, 2010
92
8
8
Country
I recently bought this tailstock, which has missing parts. I thought it would just be a cam/lever that was needed, but not so.There is no cutout to the spindle support tube to allow access to the actual spindle. Looking down the support tube shows no cutout or slits etc. Could this be a factory error? I could mill through the support tube to solve this, but if I am wrong it would destroy it's history. Does anyone have one of these who could give me some advice?
Dave. IMG_20210425_153351.jpg IMG_20210425_153758_3_2.jpg IMG_20210425_153858_3.jpg
'
 
Last edited:

wefalck

Registered User
Mar 29, 2011
701
85
28
Paris
Country
I just flicked through my 1912 Wolf, Jahn & Co. catalogue, but neither of the hand-lever tailstocks pictured shows a feature like this.

Technically speaking, a cam-lock would also be less than ideal, as it it has the potential to throw the spindle out of alignment, when locked. Normally, there was a slot in the body onto which a clamping ring fitted to provide for centric clamping, if the drilling-tailstock was actually provided for locking.

As the history and provenance of these parts is generally unknown, there is always the possibility that it is workshop modification for a particular no unknown purpose.
 
Last edited:

dave-b

Registered User
Jul 28, 2010
92
8
8
Country
Thanks for searching.I take your point re. alignment, especially as there is a little wear on the fit. There may be room for split cotters,but the cutaway would still have to be done, and alignment would still be a problem PS it is definitely stamped "Wolf Jahn" but too small to show up in pics.
 

Betzel

NAWCC Member
Dec 1, 2010
404
74
28
Country
Region
Very strange. Uh, congratulations. So, what is the OD of your runner?

And, is the runner a tight enough fit in the body that a flat-sided "D" bolt could go through it (thus clearing the runner) and be tightened by a handled-nut? Are there location stops on the other side of the tailstock that could fix such a fastener? If yes, when free, it would be a very tight sliding fit, perfect for drilling, and clamp with only slight pressure. This would solve a couple of mysteries, and let you use it ;-)

Also, does the front of the runner have a 40 degree included trumpet and does it take collets the same diameter as the headstock (8mm??) and does it have a locating pin in it still for the 1.9mm slots? Or does it take something like 6mm (etc.) collets? I think the Geneva's took 6mm at the tailstocks in this configuration, but don't know for sure.

Did you get a tailstock drawbar? What does the rest of it look like?
 

wefalck

Registered User
Mar 29, 2011
701
85
28
Paris
Country
Normally, I would expect the runner to have a 12 mm OD, just big enough to accomodate an 8 mm collet. However, the fact that the runner is bigger at the business end, than at the shaft, seems to indicate that the OD may be smaller. This in turn may indicate that an ordinary tailstock was converted for use as drilling-tailstock. Ordinary tailstock runners would have an OD of 7 or 8 mm.

In this case, excentric clamping could work, but still would not be ideal. Strange, however, that the hole does not penetrate into the tailstock bore.
 

dave-b

Registered User
Jul 28, 2010
92
8
8
Country
This is not easy to describe or measure. The runner is 11.95 mm diam. with a 15 mm head. It has a key, and takes 8 mm collets (no drawbar - in fact nothing else) As in position for use, the front hole is 6 mm, rear hole 5 mm. The rear hole is counterbored, and the front hole extends to within 2 mm of the counterbore, leaving a small lip inside. I cannot tell if the counterbored area is IMG_20210427_220147.jpg IMG_20210427_220403.jpg machined into the body or an insert -It does not easily tap out. My thinking is to mill through to 6mm and use a lever/cam secured at the rear, which seems designed to stop a retainer from turning As Wefalck points out, not ideal, but it was done this way on other lathes
 

Betzel

NAWCC Member
Dec 1, 2010
404
74
28
Country
Region
I think there is an eccentric cam (closer to the bed) to lock the tailstock onto the bed, as is often done?

But what is the purpose of the hole that is farther north? One crazy thought would be for a horizontally mounted pinion to go in the top hole that would fit onto a rack cut into the runner such that rotating the pinion would advance the runner into the work. But, that's totally insane, and the runner would have needed a guide pin to keep it located.

Very strange. I'm now totally curious!
 

Betzel

NAWCC Member
Dec 1, 2010
404
74
28
Country
Region
OK, cool.

If the runner takes collets, something (a drawbar) is missing that could be made, to secure the collets. That's no big deal.

So the top (north) hole looks like it could "pinch clamp" the smooth runner to lock it, if the right nut and bolt configuration were present? Is the runner-to-tailstock fit right now pretty snug, yet it slides? If yes, would very slight pressure lock it?
 

Betzel

NAWCC Member
Dec 1, 2010
404
74
28
Country
Region
Based on my own experiences, I would wait (and keep guessing/thinking) before machining anything, but it's your machine :)
 

dave-b

Registered User
Jul 28, 2010
92
8
8
Country
Based on my own experiences, I would wait (and keep guessing/thinking) before machining anything, but it's your machine :)
Yes, my feelings too. Thats why I was hoping someone else had one. Its still ok for drilling.Thanks for the blue-sky thinking re. rack drive, but it already has a hand lever.
 

Betzel

NAWCC Member
Dec 1, 2010
404
74
28
Country
Region
Sure. In these "lockdown" days, a puzzle is a most most welcome diversion. And, this is a puzzle.

With a few W-J machines myself, I'm still curious to see the rest of your lathe. And, to know if you can make a test pinch through the top hole with a D-shaped bolt or a skinny one with fat washers to see if it will secure the tailstock runner in place by pressing on the flats of the clamping hole. It looks like it will clamp from deflection alone, thus not needing a cutout slot. If no, then the mystery deepens as to what kinds of parts are missing and what they originally did :) There is a photo on Tony's website that has a similar hole, but it looks like nothing fits in it. Maybe it was made for something that was unused in later production runs, so it actually has no function other than to remind us not to make too many runs of an early version as you will have to look at them for eternity. Wolf ahn watchmakers' lathes Last photo on the bottom.

You may be familiar with how the Leinen WW82/83 series rear-mounted pinch works to clamp on the round motor mount shaft (the motor and accessory spindle are very heavy) That principle is what I think may be happening here. Unfortunately, I have no pictures to explain.

I've found these guys have taken original hand or small batch techniques to the grave that we can only do today with sophisticated CNC type machining with diamond bits, lasers and computers in a run of humdreds to make it pay off. What the old timers did does not always make sense, as their thinking does not always jump right out. I am still wondering how they aligned and cut their geneva matching head and tailstocks? All we have is a razor test, but that will only check what was done by one finish machinist. And, how did they grind the early sets of cone bearings to absolute perfection before 1900?

Did you get a compound with it's OEM 45mm shoe?
 
Last edited:

dave-b

Registered User
Jul 28, 2010
92
8
8
Country
Sure. In these "lockdown" days, a puzzle is a most most welcome diversion. And, this is a puzzle.

With a few W-J machines myself, I'm still curious to see the rest of your lathe. And, to know if you can make a test pinch through the top hole with a D-shaped bolt or a skinny one with fat washers to see if it will secure the tailstock runner in place by pressing on the flats of the clamping hole. It looks like it will clamp from deflection alone, thus not needing a cutout slot. If no, then the mystery deepens as to what kinds of parts are missing and what they originally did :) There is a photo on Tony's website that has a similar hole, but it looks like nothing fits in it. Maybe it was made for something that was unused in later production runs, so it actually has no function other than to remind us not to make too many runs of an early version as you will have to look at them for eternity. Wolf ahn watchmakers' lathes Last photo on the bottom.

You may be familiar with how the Leinen WW82/83 series rear-mounted pinch works to clamp on the round motor mount shaft (the motor and accessory spindle are very heavy) That principle is what I think may be happening here. Unfortunately, I have no pictures to explain.

I've found these guys have taken original hand or small batch techniques to the grave that we can only do today with sophisticated CNC type machining with diamond bits, lasers and computers in a run of humdreds to make it pay off. What the old timers did does not always make sense, as their thinking does not always jump right out. I am still wondering how they aligned and cut their geneva matching head and tailstocks? All we have is a razor test, but that will only check what was done by one finish machinist. And, how did they grind the early sets of cone bearings to absolute perfection before 1900?

Did you get a compound with it's OEM 45mm shoe?
Thanks for pointing out that photo - I had missed that before .It does suggest an unused hole, but the problem of the missing cutout remains. The tailstock would have to be altered if that hole is not used for locking. I checked my Leinen ww82 - Ithink you are referring to "split cotters" for clamping. They are a great system,and would work if they were small enough, but would still need the spindle to be exposed. This tailstock came as a stand alone piece, as it is, so no lathe. Not sure what you mean by OEM 45 shoe - I do have a WJ compound with the standard 35mm long shoe. I did try to wedge through the hole (with a scewdriver) but it had no effect on locking..
Ps. I did once make a rear bearing for the larger WJ headstock. I made it from cast iron as I had no efficient grinding system.It needed careful work and hand lapping but it was successful. There is no substitute for trying it for yourself!
 
Last edited:

Betzel

NAWCC Member
Dec 1, 2010
404
74
28
Country
Region
split cotters
OK, thank you. Now, I know what that's called. Funny you had a WW82...

OK. So you got a tailstock only? Huh. The claw chooses, I guess. Will it clamp on to a suitable WW bed as found? Does it have a finish matching number stamped on the bottom? I think the Leinen's and later (post 1930?) G. Boley's were standardized at zero across and 50.000mm up, but so many others others were made with their headstocks together and stamped as a pair. Would love to have watched that being done. I don't have a W-J WW, just the Geneva, but thought their cross slides fit to a 45, rather than a 35mm shoe. Maybe not? Or is your x-slide not W-J?

So, I was thinking it is an unused hole that could have once been designated for a "drill quill" and if so it would have come with a different runner with the rack teeth cut in, and the handle would have been a pinion internally as the alignment for that kind of setup looks feasible. Apparently the drill feed, as made, was not intended to be locked, so there is no need to try to tighten the internal runner in the tailstock with a pinch nut and bolt, as it was not intended to be fixed in any stationary position. They made a quite a few great machines, but not as many as the other houses, apparently. Still very cool and functional stuff.

I think a bunch of guys who did not drink together (except on Christmas) made all this stuff in Esslingen, and marked them for the various names sold in Frankfurt, etc. Some were totally unmarked (except for the matching) and I guess I will never know what that was all about. Anyway, I'm going with "old drill quill idea" on the unused hole, which they later abandoned in favor of the sensitive handle - better to feel the cut rate with your hand :cool:

Talk me out of it? Hope your new drawbar and handle come out well! And, happy machining!
 

dave-b

Registered User
Jul 28, 2010
92
8
8
Country
OK, thank you. Now, I know what that's called. Funny you had a WW82...

OK. So you got a tailstock only? Huh. The claw chooses, I guess. Will it clamp on to a suitable WW bed as found? Does it have a finish matching number stamped on the bottom? I think the Leinen's and later (post 1930?) G. Boley's were standardized at zero across and 50.000mm up, but so many others others were made with their headstocks together and stamped as a pair. Would love to have watched that being done. I don't have a W-J WW, just the Geneva, but thought their cross slides fit to a 45, rather than a 35mm shoe. Maybe not? Or is your x-slide not W-J?

So, I was thinking it is an unused hole that could have once been designated for a "drill quill" and if so it would have come with a different runner with the rack teeth cut in, and the handle would have been a pinion internally as the alignment for that kind of setup looks feasible. Apparently the drill feed, as made, was not intended to be locked, so there is no need to try to tighten the internal runner in the tailstock with a pinch nut and bolt, as it was not intended to be fixed in any stationary position. They made a quite a few great machines, but not as many as the other houses, apparently. Still very cool and functional stuff.

I think a bunch of guys who did not drink together (except on Christmas) made all this stuff in Esslingen, and marked them for the various names sold in Frankfurt, etc. Some were totally unmarked (except for the matching) and I guess I will never know what that was all about. Anyway, I'm going with "old drill quill idea" on the unused hole, which they later abandoned in favor of the sensitive handle - better to feel the cut rate with your hand :cool:

Talk me out of it? Hope your new drawbar and handle come out well! And, happy machining!
Yes it will clamp to a ( Boley ) bed and is numbered 20 The x slide is not marked but is identical to the one you referred to on Tony's site, lncluding the steel handle support tubes (rather than the more usual brass ones ) Also mine has a matching rotational locking lever rather than the crude taper pin on your pic. I support your view that many makers used the same suppliers.
 

Betzel

NAWCC Member
Dec 1, 2010
404
74
28
Country
Region
OK, thanks. And your slide fits on a 35mm shoe, just like Leinen and Boley. I thought the W-J were all 45mm on the bottom. Who knew?

Well, I hope once you have a drawbar and a male dead center fitted up, things align. These are old. Who knows where that headstock stamped 20 is, or how many sets #20 made while working.

If I had nothing else to do and it aligned well with what you have, maybe I would find an (M4?) carbon steel bolt could be softened at the head and turned "pan head" to the size of the hole, then drilled with a small locting hole for a tommy bar, but not slotted. With a matching nut made up and the bolt shaft ground to a D, you could seal it up to keep junk from getting in there. There's something wrong with me as I want to blue everything. Maybe it would look okay.

I have to make a set of ball pins for the oil holes in my (unbranded, but very W-J looking) geneva faceplate. I'm getting better at turning a sphere freehand, but not perfect. Still turning oddballs. Well,

All the best!
 

Betzel

NAWCC Member
Dec 1, 2010
404
74
28
Country
Region
I believe the WJ tailstock was made before WWII, but it is an interesting thought, as some eastern copies had western identifications.

From Boley watchmakers' lathes (last photo on the bottom)

"The lack of finesse in the "G.Boley" stamp - heavy punching with the heavy letters too close together - betrays the origins of the lathe"
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlexandreVienna

AlexandreVienna

Registered User
Jan 7, 2021
43
6
8
Vienna
Country
Region
Betzel: No way, this is definitely 60s.
So what, Even Tony (lathes.uk) is mentioning that East German products were sold under a false name to the West.. It looks like an Andräe to me. And Tony has a few nice examples on his website, just search a little...
 

dave-b

Registered User
Jul 28, 2010
92
8
8
Country
Betzel: No way, this is definitely 60s.
So what, Even Tony (lathes.uk) is mentioning that East German products were sold under a false name to the West.. It looks like an Andräe to me. And Tony has a few nice examples on his website, just search a little...
I would be surprised if this was later than 1920. The stamping looks ok by WJ standards - the capitals are about 1mm high. But I would like to see the inside of an Andre tailstock to be sure how the clamping works (I presume the spindle is exposed? )
Thanks for any help. IMG_20210507_125416_3.jpg
 
Last edited:

wefalck

Registered User
Mar 29, 2011
701
85
28
Paris
Country
In the early years of the WWW I saved many pictures from auctions and other sources of all sorts of lathes and have quite a collection of WJ&Co. pictures, including their WW ones. I found two tailstocks that have the same empty holes and one catalogue picture - so the mystery remains ;)

Unfortunately, the records are lost together with company archives, but it would be really interesting to trace the history of development of the WW- and D-bed lathes. Of course, we know, where the WW-lathes comes from, but how it happened that most manufacturers, with a few exceptions, homed in on it as a kind of standard.

I would be also very curious as to the relationship between Lorch, Schmidt & Co. and Wolf, Jahn & Co., both being located in Frankfurt. Frankfurt is also not one of the classical precision mechanics towns. However, both company's records have been lost in the 1960s, when they folded. I did try to do some research with the Frankfurt chamber of commerce, but they could not help.

It seems that not all parts were made in-house. Collets were made by a specialist company named Ortlieb (they still exist, but don't make the respective collets anymore). Ortlieb made collets for most German and many Swiss lathe manufacturers it seems. I have a 1950s catalogue that list virtually all of them - a very useful reference for the collet data.
 

dave-b

Registered User
Jul 28, 2010
92
8
8
Country
In the early years of the WWW I saved many pictures from auctions and other sources of all sorts of lathes and have quite a collection of WJ&Co. pictures, including their WW ones. I found two tailstocks that have the same empty holes and one catalogue picture - so the mystery remains ;)

Unfortunately, the records are lost together with company archives, but it would be really interesting to trace the history of development of the WW- and D-bed lathes. Of course, we know, where the WW-lathes comes from, but how it happened that most manufacturers, with a few exceptions, homed in on it as a kind of standard.

I would be also very curious as to the relationship between Lorch, Schmidt & Co. and Wolf, Jahn & Co., both being located in Frankfurt. Frankfurt is also not one of the classical precision mechanics towns. However, both company's records have been lost in the 1960s, when they folded. I did try to do some research with the Frankfurt chamber of commerce, but they could not help.

It seems that not all parts were made in-house. Collets were made by a specialist company named Ortlieb (they still exist, but don't make the respective collets anymore). Ortlieb made collets for most German and many Swiss lathe manufacturers it seems. I have a 1950s catalogue that list virtually all of them - a very useful reference for the collet data.
Interesting - if you found a catalogue picture showing an empty hole then I shall do nothing to alter mine. I was thinking that perhaps they had in mind a camlock, which then marred the surface of the spindle Perhaps they then used up old stock castings without a lock. Just idle conjecture, of course. Many thanks.
 

AlexandreVienna

Registered User
Jan 7, 2021
43
6
8
Vienna
Country
Region
I have a hole in mine, for fixing a position...
is it that one you are curious about.
Or am I mistaken?

Sorry I really do not understand .
 
Last edited:

Betzel

NAWCC Member
Dec 1, 2010
404
74
28
Country
Region
I agree, the cam-lock theory would have chewed up a precision machine surface and thrown it out of center alignment, so they would not have gone with that. With no slot cut, it does not pinch well unless it was a perfect fit, and the bolt had a flat like a geneva bar, so I'm still of the mind that the hole was intended for a drillpress like rack/pinion fed specialty production drilling spindle, which turned out to be inconvenient at this size.

Pyramids? Stonehenge? Tailstocks?
how it happened that most manufacturers, with a few exceptions, homed in on it as a kind of standard.
Given how a lot of part-making and service work arose and fell on both sides of both wars, before people switched to buying material rather than making it, my guess would be the selling point of interchangeability around WW as standard. People still use "marriage" lathes and parts, though not always well. The best machines were made, painstakingly hand-finished and sold as one complete matched set outfit. I don't have a Lorch, but for me, they won for most insane number of attachments in matched boxed sets (three spindles? really?).

Given the technology they had, the master finishers of yesterday were far better craftsmen and were less alienated from their work than the accountant-designers of today. Still, the Sherline does the job today.
 

wefalck

Registered User
Mar 29, 2011
701
85
28
Paris
Country
LS&Co. and WJ&Co. seem to have done a lot of jig boring and grinding to keep interchangeability.

The though that the mysterious hole was meant for a rack and pinion drive is interesting, but to my knowledge only Derbyshire and Levin used this concept.
 

Betzel

NAWCC Member
Dec 1, 2010
404
74
28
Country
Region
Another lathe tailstock with the mystery hole. No brand seems to be stamped on it, but it looks like a WW pattern. The locking cam is more Boleyesque than Wolfenstein. Only sharing as life can be dull sometimes, and I like solving a mystery. Have not seen many slotted clamps.

1.jpg 2.jpg 3.jpg 4.jpg
 

wefalck

Registered User
Mar 29, 2011
701
85
28
Paris
Country
On this one, the hole seems to cut into the bore for the runner !?

Boley uses a completely different technique to lock the runner. A ring is pulled against the runner with a thumb-nut.

Who are 'Wolfenstein' ?
 

dave-b

Registered User
Jul 28, 2010
92
8
8
Country
Another lathe tailstock with the mystery hole. No brand seems to be stamped on it, but it looks like a WW pattern. The locking cam is more Boleyesque than Wolfenstein. Only sharing as life can be dull sometimes, and I like solving a mystery. Have not seen many slotted clamps.

View attachment 653746 View attachment 653747 View attachment 653748 View attachment 653749
If that is the runner seen through the hole, then the hole sees far too high for any locking system I can think of, including camlock, wedge or split cotter..It sure is a mystery.(slotted ring clamps as per Boley would of course tend to push the spindle out of alignment in the same/opposite way as a camlock.) Mechanically, I rather like the very old Boley(?) method of having the runner rest on V slot and eccentrically clamped from above.
 
Last edited:

AlexandreVienna

Registered User
Jan 7, 2021
43
6
8
Vienna
Country
Region
Boley - no way! look at the crude knob... I would again hint at GDR.

Wolfenstein, is a computergame, it was popular in Germany and Austria centuries ago : a smart joke for referring to WolfJahn
 

Betzel

NAWCC Member
Dec 1, 2010
404
74
28
Country
Region
Who are 'Wolfenstein' ?
Wolf, Jahn & Co.

The founder was Albert Jahn, so perhaps the money partner (?) was Wolf, though I've never seen much information on him. I would be curious to know. A childhood friend had that name, so we called him many strange things like Wolfy, Wolfenstein, etc. yes, from an old game. Unclear. Sorry!

By "boleyesque" I was (again, unclearly) not referring to the ring and thumbscrew runner lock (which does not damage the runner's surface like a cam lock in the mystery hole would) which works quite well.

I was referring to the shaft orientation of the stock-to-bed locking cam being parallel with the spindle and sticking awkwardly out the end, though that was copied. Webster Whitcomb was the original (hence the term W-W) so it seems reasonable the others (including G. Boley) copied that idea. Also not suggesting this tailstock was made by G. Boley, just referring to the commonly copied early style bed lock mechanism. I think Derbyshire may still use this for their headstocks, as it does not move very often, but it seems everyone else eventually agreed it made more sense to have the head and tail stock bed-lock shaft orientation at a right angle to the spindle, sticking out the rear, so they will not get in the way as you move things around, off the bed, etc.

Anyway, I posted as the hole in these images seems located with a similar orientation to the OP's.

I would again hint at GDR
[The images I posted are not of the OP's runner shown in the beginning of the thread. They only share a feature, and I believe both were made in the early days of WW copying, which is prior to WWII and the world it created, but we all have our opinions...]

So, I agree, locking a runner in this hole with a drrect cam would damage the runner, so perhaps it was a rack and pinion tailstock runner quill feed from larger machines. But rethinking, that would have needed a guide pin extending into the bore and mating locating groove in the runner, and we have not seen evidence of a pin. So, I think split cotters and a "D-bed" through bolt make the most sense. I would have used brass cotters to not scuff the runner. That idea will at least make the tailstock operational again. Right?

The mystery remains...
 

dave-b

Registered User
Jul 28, 2010
92
8
8
Country
Wolf, Jahn & Co.

The founder was Albert Jahn, so perhaps the money partner (?) was Wolf, though I've never seen much information on him. I would be curious to know. A childhood friend had that name, so we called him many strange things like Wolfy, Wolfenstein, etc. yes, from an old game. Unclear. Sorry!

By "boleyesque" I was (again, unclearly) not referring to the ring and thumbscrew runner lock (which does not damage the runner's surface like a cam lock in the mystery hole would) which works quite well.

I was referring to the shaft orientation of the stock-to-bed locking cam being parallel with the spindle and sticking awkwardly out the end, though that was copied. Webster Whitcomb was the original (hence the term W-W) so it seems reasonable the others (including G. Boley) copied that idea. Also not suggesting this tailstock was made by G. Boley, just referring to the commonly copied early style bed lock mechanism. I think Derbyshire may still use this for their headstocks, as it does not move very often, but it seems everyone else eventually agreed it made more sense to have the head and tail stock bed-lock shaft orientation at a right angle to the spindle, sticking out the rear, so they will not get in the way as you move things around, off the bed, etc.

Anyway, I posted as the hole in these images seems located with a similar orientation to the OP's.



[The images I posted are not of the OP's runner shown in the beginning of the thread. They only share a feature, and I believe both were made in the early days of WW copying, which is prior to WWII and the world it created, but we all have our opinions...]

So, I agree, locking a runner in this hole with a drrect cam would damage the runner, so perhaps it was a rack and pinion tailstock runner quill feed from larger machines. But rethinking, that would have needed a guide pin extending into the bore and mating locating groove in the runner, and we have not seen evidence of a pin. So, I think split cotters and a "D-bed" through bolt make the most sense. I would have used brass cotters to not scuff the runner. That idea will at least make the tailstock operational again. Right?

The mystery remains...
Split cotters would work if my ts. had a cutout to expose the runner. although, it would be rather flimsy. If the cotter od. was 6mm the through bolt would be about 3mm, and when cut to half diameter might just be ok. Just for interest I show another clamp system, this is a Derbyshire lathe. IMG_20210511_132545_3.jpg
 

Betzel

NAWCC Member
Dec 1, 2010
404
74
28
Country
Region
Thank you. I had always wondered how the Derbyshire angled screw-clamp worked. There's a split inner-sleeve.

Now, I "see" what you said (finally) in #1. That's not your runner exposed in the top photo, but part of the casting itself. Neither a cotter nor a rack would work as-is, as there's zero engagement with the runner through the hole. The more recent tailstock I found shows a runner exposed inside, so maybe a split cotter or rack/pinion would work there, but not on yours. I've seen so many of these (as have all of you) I still can't believe none of us can figure this out.

This is my Grandfather's Leinen WW80 tailstock, with the ring and clamp setup wefalck mentioned, and you may be familiar with. Like G. Boley's last designs, they implemented it on both the colleted and plain (8mm) runners. But I think Leinen's was the best implementation. I'm biased, but the width of the ring, tight tolerances and nice detailing are what make it elegant. And, their blueing was serious, like a PPK, in a hot salt bath. The last Boley's were chemically blackened, but work fine. And, this thumbscrew, if not straight knurled, may have actually been milled. It's a pleasure to use. You could do either the ring/clamp trick like these, or slice a slot at 6:00, turn a shoulder and use an outer clamp, but the mystery will live on.

I don't think the casting would deflect enough for a cam-lock pinch. Would it crack? Or, would it just freaking work?

LeinenColletedWW80.jpeg
 

wefalck

Registered User
Mar 29, 2011
701
85
28
Paris
Country
I just saw this Boley-tailstock on ebay:

s-l1600.jpg

s-l1600.jpg


The arrangement with a thumb-nut gave me the idea that there could be a screw going through that at the end with the screw-head has a cut-out to fit the barrel. The thumb-nut then pushes a sleeve with a similar cut-out against the barrel. This arrangement would excert quite symmetrical pressure on the barrel. I have a vague memory that somewhere in my library of antique tool-books I have an image that shows such an arrangement, but I would not know where to look right now.
Incidentally, that Boley-tailstock has the classical arrangement of a split-sleeve that is compressed by the tumb-nut. The slot is on the underside, while on other German makes it tends to be on the side facing away from the operator.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Betzel

Betzel

NAWCC Member
Dec 1, 2010
404
74
28
Country
Region
Dave-b, I would peruse on over and take a look, if it were me.

This the best mystery-solved candidate, though the hole is higher up here than there.

If a slot were milled at a similar angle, and a suitable bolt and thumbscrew made, Dave-b's tailstock should work fine. Why did they not do that? Maybe Wolf Jahn were converted in the late '30's to make precision munition components, and this was from a last run of tail stocks to go out, not fully finished?

The listing says "It was perfect fit to Boley & Leinen Reform and made on his factory for the USA market," but does not resemble anything I have ever seen they ever made. And, all the B&L/Leinen tools I have ever seen made for the USA were (likely under exclusive contract) stamped "Henry Paulson & Co. I do not believe the Reform line was part of that. This one is marked ARROW //// which is an english word and I do not see the word Germany anywhere. He's sniffing Chernobyl fallout. A British war copy? Eastern Europe?
 

dave-b

Registered User
Jul 28, 2010
92
8
8
Country
I just saw this Boley-tailstock on ebay:

s-l1600.jpg

s-l1600.jpg


The arrangement with a thumb-nut gave me the idea that there could be a screw going through that at the end with the screw-head has a cut-out to fit the barrel. The thumb-nut then pushes a sleeve with a similar cut-out against the barrel. This arrangement would excert quite symmetrical pressure on the barrel. I have a vague memory that somewhere in my library of antique tool-books I have an image that shows such an arrangement, but I would not know where to look right now.
Incidentally, that Boley-tailstock has the classical arrangement of a split-sleeve that is compressed by the tumb-nut. The slot is on the underside, while on other German makes it tends to be on the side facing away from the operator.
Do you mean like this Pultra split cotter lock? If so it could work, but the WJ hole is rather small. The cotters take up a lot of the available space. I estimate it would leave only 2-3 mm for the clamp bolt - surely they would have made a larger hole? When I first posted I had in mind something like the Peerless arrangement as shown (sadly missing the original runner). IMG_20210513_172919_1.jpg IMG_20210513_173347_1.jpg IMG_20210513_175152_1.jpg (
 
Last edited:

wefalck

Registered User
Mar 29, 2011
701
85
28
Paris
Country
Yes, I was indeed thinking of the Pultra-type arrangement. A M3 / 1/8" thread would probably work, as everything would be machined to close tolerances, with very little movement needed to lock.

An excentric lock would also work in principle. However, I think the arrangement with a split bore and clamping ring would the least throw the runner out of alignment.
 

dave-b

Registered User
Jul 28, 2010
92
8
8
Country
Yes, I was indeed thinking of the Pultra-type arrangement. A M3 / 1/8" thread would probably work, as everything would be machined to close tolerances, with very little movement needed to lock.

An excentric lock would also work in principle. However, I think the arrangement with a split bore and clamping ring would the least throw the runner out of alignment.
Yes, an eccentric would have some tendency to axial movement if it pushes directly onto the runner, but the main upwards movement applies for many tailstocks,including Boley. (incidentally, if we were having this chat when it was first decided to weaken the body casting with such a cutout for locking, would we have approved? )
On the Boley this has been proven not to matter, but any tailstocks most approaching perfection must include the IME with a collet system at each end.
 
Last edited:

Betzel

NAWCC Member
Dec 1, 2010
404
74
28
Country
Region
Moderate me if I'm kicking a dead horse, but there's another one on the online auction platform referred to as a Vintage Jewelers Watch Makers Lathe Tail Stock, and it looks like an old American make. It must have a third part between the too-low cam/hole and the too-high runner. I was thinking a brass plug must be inside there, similar to how the old Marshall 3-way cross slide had a spring pushing on a brass plug to keep tension on the indexing indicators. It also is strangely centered looking down. Perhaps it is not original, but made to work.

If the runner is thrown out of alignment (radially?) that makes sense, and this is why we don't see many of these. But, at least the brass "plug" would explain the gap between the two distant parts and would avoid ruining a nicely machined surface with the direct cam-locking action...
 

dave-b

Registered User
Jul 28, 2010
92
8
8
Country
Moderate me if I'm kicking a dead horse, but there's another one on the online auction platform referred to as a Vintage Jewelers Watch Makers Lathe Tail Stock, and it looks like an old American make. It must have a third part between the too-low cam/hole and the too-high runner. I was thinking a brass plug must be inside there, similar to how the old Marshall 3-way cross slide had a spring pushing on a brass plug to keep tension on the indexing indicators. It also is strangely centered looking down. Perhaps it is not original, but made to work.

If the runner is thrown out of alignment (radially?) that makes sense, and this is why we don't see many of these. But, at least the brass "plug" would explain the gap between the two distant parts and would avoid ruining a nicely machined surface with the direct cam-locking action...
Thanks for showing that. I like the idea of a brass plug - one could be fitted by drilling upward through the bed clamp hole. Such a plug would eliminate any tendency for the friction of the cam to move the runner backwards or forwards. The upwards pushing tendency applies to many respected tailstocks, including the ring clamp type as on a Boley. It does not seem to matter unless the runner is very worn.
 
Last edited:

Betzel

NAWCC Member
Dec 1, 2010
404
74
28
Country
Region
On the B&L (above) as well as G. Boley, the center clamping ring is pulled up a few microns by the thumb-nut pushing the runner against the top of the bore. The pressure is spread out over the length of the runner and the fit was good (and these fit very closely, such that they will not fall out from gravity if oiled with at least 30 weight oil) so they cannot all use the same mechanical principle and be wrong :cool:

Also, the stop-limit ring on mine is tight-fit steel, but the screw to clamp it is brass, to avoid marring the surface. I wonder if your W-J tailstock has a vertical hole above the cam hole, piercing the runner cylinder. If so, a plug could be fit as a drop in with a long pair of tweezers and held in place by the runner. Removing the runner and inverting it, the plug could have fallen out, leaving us with what we see today --a mystery...
 

dave-b

Registered User
Jul 28, 2010
92
8
8
Country
On the B&L (above) as well as G. Boley, the center clamping ring is pulled up a few microns by the thumb-nut pushing the runner against the top of the bore. The pressure is spread out over the length of the runner and the fit was good (and these fit very closely, such that they will not fall out from gravity if oiled with at least 30 weight oil) so they cannot all use the same mechanical principle and be wrong :cool:

Also, the stop-limit ring on mine is tight-fit steel, but the screw to clamp it is brass, to avoid marring the surface. I wonder if your W-J tailstock has a vertical hole above the cam hole, piercing the runner cylinder. If so, a plug could be fit as a drop in with a long pair of tweezers and held in place by the runner. Removing the runner and inverting it, the plug could have fallen out, leaving us with what we see today --a mystery...
I have never said the Boley clamping system was wrong, just that it was no more centralised than many other systems. Yes, a few microns of theoretical movement until many years of wear takes place. That is true of many makes.
 
Last edited:

Betzel

NAWCC Member
Dec 1, 2010
404
74
28
Country
Region
Woops. Did not mean to imply anything (or anyone) was wrong, it just dawned on me that a rotating cam rocks a runner up in the middle the exact same way (positionally, anyway) as the locking rings with thumbscrews do. Agreed on the many makes. I was thinking about "ten thousand sailors can't being wrong" or something like that. Maybe the "C" split-cut and clamp style offer less distortion, but in good shape it's like a micron or two. This is all theoretical --all of them have worked fine for me. With improving pandemia and better weather, our thread volume is lower? :)
 

dave-b

Registered User
Jul 28, 2010
92
8
8
Country
No problem Betzel. I am a great admirer of all things Boley, and can find no measurable difference in spindle position, locked or free. Same goes for other makes. It just shows that theory does not always apply to real life. Re. the original post, while I could easily find some way to lock the WJ spindle I have decided to leave it as it is unless I find an identical one to copy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Betzel

D.th.munroe

Registered User
Feb 15, 2018
922
308
63
39
BC Canada
Country
Region
Is that not just a loose sleeve in the middle of the tailstock? That would move up with a cam to lock the spindle?
That was my first impression seeing it.
Dan
 

D.th.munroe

Registered User
Feb 15, 2018
922
308
63
39
BC Canada
Country
Region
I did, that's what made me think that.
If you blow up the picture through the runner there is clearly lines that look like it's 3 tubes end to end.
 

dave-b

Registered User
Jul 28, 2010
92
8
8
Country
No, what you see is the smaller bore for the collet meeting the slighly larger bore for the drawbar. There's no loose tube, but it's not a bad idea for clamping.
 

D.th.munroe

Registered User
Feb 15, 2018
922
308
63
39
BC Canada
Country
Region
Ahh ok, looking through the tailstock just looked like a loose tube in the middle.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
166,152
Messages
1,447,482
Members
86,700
Latest member
B_Lac
Encyclopedia Pages
1,101
Total wiki contributions
2,883
Last edit
E. Howard & Co. by Clint Geller