Shopsmith Forums

I bought a Mark V Model 510 Main Table (complete assembly) from eBay this past week. I received it yesterday. It was advertised as "extremely clean". The seller and I see clean to mean two different things.

However, the table and tubes cleaned up very well. In the end, I got a very good deal for less than $100.

But as a result, I have a question. I removed the front and rear rails without paying much attention to the hardware that I was removing. By the time I finished, I realized that the combination of spacers and washers that had been used to secure the rails was a total conglomeration.

I can only assume that this was done in an attempt to make the front and rear rails parallel to one another (which really is not necessary).

My question: Is there any other reason to attach the rails with anything other than the Shopsmith designed spacers (#146, 514101) that go between the table and the rails?

I know about the Keakap affair and this is not the same situation at all.

dusty wrote:I bought a Mark V Model 510 Main Table (complete assembly) from eBay this past week. I received it yesterday. It was advertised as "extremely clean". The seller and I see clean to mean two different things.

However, the table and tubes cleaned up very well. In the end, I got a very good deal for less than $100.

But as a result, I have a question. I removed the front and rear rails without paying much attention to the hardware that I was removing. But by the time I finished, I realized that the combination of spacers and washers that had been used to secure the rails was a total conglomeration.

I can only assume that this was done in an attempt to make the front and rear rails parallel to one another (which really is not necessary).

My question: Is there any other reason to attach the rails with anything other than the Shopsmith designed spacers (#146, 514101) that go between the table and the rails?

I know about the Keakap affair and this is not the same situation at all.

I'm not sure why you say parallel is not necessary (maybe because this is only a main table that won't be used in conjunction with others?), but you probably recall my 520 table/rail issues (really table issues with the bosses not all consistent distances apart)?

When the tables/rails came back from Shopsmith, the rails were shimmed with a variety of different thickness and/or number of shims at different bosses. When I had to remove a couple of the rails (which I had to do because a couple got damaged in transport back from Shopsmith), I was very careful to keep track of what group of spacers and shims was used at which position on the tables and to put them back in the exact same locations. Again, this was because I knew the bosses were inconsistent.

algale wrote:I'm not sure why you say parallel is not necessary (maybe because this is only a main table that won't be used in conjunction with others?), but you probably recall my 520 table/rail issues (really table issues with the bosses not all consistent distances apart)?

When the tables/rails came back from Shopsmith, the rails were shimmed with a variety of different thickness and/or number of shims at different bosses. When I had to remove a couple of the rails (which I had to do because a couple got damaged in transport back from Shopsmith), I was very careful to keep track of what group of spacers and shims was used at which position on the tables and to put them back in the exact same locations. Again, this was because I knew the bosses were inconsistent.

We have two subjects being addressed here.

First being my statement (which is my opinion) that front and rear rails need not be parallel. I believe that because only the front rail is used as a reference. It is the reference for the rip fence and as such must be perpendicular to the miter tracks. For the rip fence, the rear rail is nothing more than a gripping point for the rear rip fence lock. To become a problem, the rear rail would need to be way off.

Your table had bosses that were inconsistent which apparently meant that when a straight edge was placed across them either the straight edge was not perpendicular to the miter track or not all of the bosses made contact with the straight edge.

I don't have either of those conditions ( I don't believe). I'll have to mount the rip fence from my Shorty onto this table and check the rip fence alignment to this table. I would expect them to be the same.

PS: Upon strict examination I find that I have a variety of pad thickness which explains the conglomeration of washers/spacers.

However, I am not certain that the pads, even though they are of varying thickness, do not provide a reference surface that is parallel to the reference surface on the other side of the table. Obviously, the PO thought so but I may not agree.

The used work table that I just purchased is in pretty good condition. It will need some shimming to square the rear rail to the miter slots but that will not be a problem. The front rail is as close to "dead on" as I have ability to measure.

What is neat about this is not the main table. It is the Table Bar and Tube Assembly (514344) that pleases me most. This part alone is what made me bid on the listed item and I got the table along with it all for less than the list price for the Table Bar and Tube. All of this along with a fully functional carriage.

It all cleaned up well and works as well as either of the other three that I have.

I'll post later with the details regarding the effort to square the front rail.