Shopsmith Forums

The back rail positions tables with connecting tubes just like the front rail. What else does the front rail position that the back rail does not?

The back rail provides nothing in the way of alignment. You can perform an entire table/fence alignment and never lock the rip fence to the rear rail. The rear rail provides a place to which the rip fence can be locked. That is why I said its' position is not critical.

dusty wrote:The back rail positions tables with connecting tubes just like the front rail. What else does the front rail position that the back rail does not?

The back rail provides nothing in the way of alignment. You can perform an entire table/fence alignment and never lock the rip fence to the rear rail. The rear rail provides a place to which the rip fence can be locked. That is why I said its' position is not critical.

Of course it provides alignment, VERTICAL alignment of floating tables, with the other tables.

OKAY, John. If you say so. But if you truly believe that when working on a 520, then there must be some similar procedure for use with a 510. But there is not.

When I align my Mark V tables, I do them all the same. I lay them side by side upside down on my work bench. I loosen the hardware that secures the rails to the tables, insert an extension tube that is known to be straight and long enough to span the entire width of the tables involved. With the extension tube installed and the thumbscrews all tight, I tighten the nuts that secure the rails to the tables. No fuss just tighten them. The rails are aligned.

Distance from the rails to the top of the tables is not critical so long as they are all the same. This procedure is equally applicable to both the 510 and the 520.

As stated by jsburger "Of course it provides alignment, VERTICAL alignment of floating tables, with the other tables". But the actual distance is not critical.

dusty wrote:OKAY, John. If you say so. But if you truly believe that when working on a 520, then there must be some similar procedure for use with a 510. But there is not.

When I align my Mark V tables, I do them all the same. I lay them side by side upside down on my work bench. I loosen the hardware that secures the rails to the tables, insert an extension tube that is known to be straight and long enough to span the entire width of the tables involved. With the extension tube installed and the thumbscrews all tight, I tighten the nuts that secure the rails to the tables. No fuss just tighten them. The rails are aligned.

Distance from the rails to the top of the tables is not critical so long as they are all the same. This procedure is equally applicable to both the 510 and the 520.

As stated by jsburger "Of course it provides alignment, VERTICAL alignment of floating tables, with the other tables". But the actual distance is not critical.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with your alignment procedure. I agreed with you in another post that the distance does not make any difference so long as they are all the same.

You are misunderstanding what I am saying. The front and back rails provide vertical alignment if you are using connecting tubes. I can line up the main table with the fixed extension table just by using a straight edge. If you want to install floating tables between them you have to use connector tubes. It is the position of the rails that insure the floating tables are at the same height as the main and fixed table. If they are not all the same the vertical ALIGNMENT will be off. It is the same with either a 510 or a 520.

Since the 510 to 520 upgrade is a DIY, Shopsmith provided a gauge to align the rails so they would be the same as factory installed rails. That way all tables are interchangeable.

I don't mean to be arguing with with you. You are absolutely correct in all that you have said. This is the down side of an online forum. If only we could have these conversations in a room full of saw dust.

dusty wrote:I don't mean to be arguing with with you. You are absolutely correct in all that you have said. This is the down side of an online forum. If only we could have these conversations in a room full of saw dust.

I never took it as arguing. I took it just as you said. Not talking in person. When I was still working for the Air Force everyone emailed around all the time. I never did. I either picked up the phone or walked down the hall and talked face to face.

jsburger wrote:

dusty wrote:I don't mean to be arguing with with you. You are absolutely correct in all that you have said. This is the down side of an online forum. If only we could have these conversations in a room full of saw dust.

I never took it as arguing. I took it just as you said. Not talking in person. When I was still working for the Air Force everyone emailed around all the time. I never did. I either picked up the phone or walked down the hall and talked face to face.

Lord help us - two fly boys!!!

FWIW, the lack of a way to adjust the table top to rails may be what created the 510 design change. Tapped holes do not provide slop for adjusting.

Tapped Holes???

dusty wrote:Tapped Holes???

Yes Dusty! That is the major difference between the early 510 and the later version. The rails are attached by screws into tapped holes in the table edge rather than studs, clearance holes, and kepnuts. Those holes in the front of the rails are to access the torx screws.

JPG wrote:

dusty wrote:Tapped Holes???

Yes Dusty! That is the major difference between the early 510 and the later version. The rails are attached by screws into tapped holes in the table edge rather than studs, clearance holes, and kepnuts. Those holes in the front of the rails are to access the torx screws.

That is the way my 1986 model 510 is.......