It is all in the carriage.....another new guy question

hohenfelsjoe · Post by **hohenfelsjoe** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 8:38 pm

OK, I have 2 carriages. What is the difference?

JPG · Post by **JPG** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:06 pm

hohenfelsjoe wrote:OK, I have 2 carriages. What is the difference?

The carriage on the left is a Mark V/500. The one on the right is a Mark VII. I believe the bore spacing is the same for the way tubes, and also the table post bores(Not so sure, but I believe tis so). I would mount that one which is most useful to you and use the corresponding table. The Mark VII is capable of tilting BOTH direction to 90 degrees from the way tubes, while the 500 can only do so one direction. The Mark Vii also has those 'spt' type tube holes underneath, while the 500 doesn't' Notice the rack gear/pinion gear are on opposite sides of the table support tubes.

hohenfelsjoe · Post by **hohenfelsjoe** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 11:10 am

JPG40504 wrote:The carriage on the left is a Mark V/500. The one on the right is a Mark VII. I believe the bore spacing is the same for the way tubes, and also the table post bores(Not so sure, but I believe tis so). I would mount that one which is most useful to you and use the corresponding table. The Mark VII is capable of tilting BOTH direction to 90 degrees from the way tubes, while the 500 can only do so one direction. The Mark Vii also has those 'spt' type tube holes underneath, while the 500 doesn't' Notice the rack gear/pinion gear are on opposite sides of the table support tubes.

The bore spacing is the same, they both fit and slide on my upper way tubes, and both my tables fit in both carriages. I did notice the the gear/pinion are on opposite side, I thought that was interesting. It seems that the Mark VII carriage works best for me, so I will use that one. Now I need to look for some other carriage stop rings :-(

Thanks for the reply.

JPG · Post by **JPG** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 11:50 am

hohenfelsjoe wrote:The bore spacing is the same, they both fit and slide on my upper way tubes, and both my tables fit in both carriages. I did notice the the gear/pinion are on opposite side, I thought that was interesting. It seems that the Mark VII carriage works best for me, so I will use that one. Now I need to look for some other carriage stop rings :-(

Thanks for the reply.

In yer pix it appears on the VII version that the distance from the end of the carriage that slides up against the headstock to the table support bore is less than the 500. I think IIRC the VII used a stop bolt similar to the old Greenies. A pix of that end of the carriage would be educational. I doubt you can get a spacer to fit(tink ya gonna have to make one). IMHO the VII is the way to go in spite of spacing/impact problem!

P.S. If the end/bore spacing requires a unique spacer longer than 500, consider making one compatible with the 505/10/20 arbors. I have not mentioned the location of the blade slot to the mounting tubes. That also must be verified. Does it compare to the 500???????

Corrected

billmayo · Post by **billmayo** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 1:14 pm

hohenfelsjoe wrote:The bore spacing is the same, they both fit and slide on my upper way tubes, and both my tables fit in both carriages. I did notice the the gear/pinion are on opposite side, I thought that was interesting. It seems that the Mark VII carriage works best for me, so I will use that one. Now I need to look for some other carriage stop rings :-(

Thanks for the reply.

You may not be aware but I have removed the hardware and switched sides with the hardware and shafts when I used the Mark VII table with the Mark V carriage. I turn the Mark V carriage around on the tubes when I do this. The teeth on the table legs are on opposite sides for the Mark VII and the Mark V. I would recommend using the Mark VII carriage with the Mark VII table but I did not got the Mark VII carriage when I got the Mark VII table. I did not know about the table leg teeth being on opposite sides at that time.

The Mark VII table is much wider with the extension table mounted to it and the Mark VII table/fence is longer than the 500 main table. It makes an excellant table for using the Planer/Joiner Knife Sharpener. I like this setup much better than upgrading to the 510 and is a lot cheaper for the 500.

hohenfelsjoe · Post by **hohenfelsjoe** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 8:24 pm

JPG40504 wrote:In yer pix it appears on the VII version that the distance from the end of the carriage that slides up against the headstock to the table support bore is less than the 500. I think IIRC the VII used a stop bolt similar to the old Greenies. A pix of that end of the carriage would be educational. I doubt you can get a spacer to fit(tink ya gonna have to make one). IMHO the VII is the way to go in spite of spacing/impact problem!

P.S. If the end/bore spacing requires a unique spacer longer than 500, consider making one compatible with the 505/10/20 arbors. I have not mentioned the location of the blade slot to the mounting tubes. That also must be verified. Does it compare to the 500???????

Corrected

Here are some more Pics: The VII seems to fit the best...

hohenfelsjoe · Post by **hohenfelsjoe** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 8:27 pm

Here are the tables:

billmayo · Post by **billmayo** » Sun Nov 01, 2009 10:43 am

The Mark VII main table has a tilt lock on both sides of the trunnion. This helps prevent any deflection of the table when working toward the back of the table that can occur with the 500 main table. Also the holes for adding the extension table can be seen on the table bottom which makes a nice wide main table surface.

SDSSmith · Post by **SDSSmith** » Sun Nov 01, 2009 11:02 am

Thanks for the pictures of the Mark VII table, they solved a mystery for me. I recently picked up a Mark V with a shaper/sander fence that was different from any other I had seen (ER or Mark V). You will note the holes in the Mark VII table adjacent to the main opening for the saw blade. Those are for mounting a Mark VII version of the shaper/sander fence. I got one with a machine the other day and could not initially figure out why the casting was so short and the hole spacing was totally wrong for a 510/520. Voila! I did not know that there was a Mark VII version.