Planer thicknessers

UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

gwr

Established Member
Joined
17 Oct 2010
Messages
268
Reaction score
0
Location
Northumberland
This may be a stupid question :roll: but looking at trade rated planer thicknessers and most of the tables have to be lifted to use the thicknesser is this only to suit the dust extraction?as I can't see any other reason for this unless I'm missing something which is very possable :D
 
It will probably be due to the extraction hood yes. Most if not all are designed not to work unless the hood is in place, thus forcing you to lift the tables. The way round it is to get older machines that do not need the tables to be lifted.
 
Thanks Carl yes I have been looking for older machines but size and weight will be a deciding factor.The small Sedgwick would be nice in 240v but still commanding bigger prices than I'm looking at.
 
I know that feeling. That is one reason why i went the separates route. Also i couldn't afford an old sedgwick or similar, or be able to get it up to my workshop with the limited access i have.
 
Do you both find the 6" planer wide enough or should I say are there many times you have needed a wider planer and if so do you use the sledge idea that was posted somewhere on here or another solution ? Thanks
 
Well i think we both would prefer a wider planer. My options are limited due to the fact i don't like the lift up bed options. I can't afford or have the space for a sedgwick or similar. So if i had something like this
http://www.axminster.co.uk/axminster-tr ... rod884748/

It would just get used as a planer.

I have seen the sled options before, but not really bothered with it.
 
I am in a similar position to Carl- dont want to play about with tables all the time, I like the 3 blade block in the axi, and cant afford a sedgewick. The 6" capacity does most of what I need, a 10" one would do about 95%.

My grand plan, at the moment is to build a collapsable assembly table about 7ft x 2ft, probably from 4x2 cls. it will double up as a track saw cutting table when i buy that, and will for the base to a router planing sled. I need to work out how the sides will fit on. I commented on the sled for the thicknesser in the other thread, but I think that the router would be more useful for things like table tops. Also, I would rather move the router than a lump of 12X2 oak through a thicknesser! Also, silly things like some chopping boards I made were 13" or so wide, so wouldn't go through the thicknesser- if I had the router sled to hand, they would have taken a couple of minutes to flatten.
 
I agree a router sled would be an easier option. For one it pretty much packs away to nothing. Where as a sled for the thicknesser will always require a base 12/13'' wide. Then you need to think about length. What sort of max length will you use on the sled? If say you have the room to plane an 8ft board, that means you need to keep an 8 x 12'' sled hanging around.
 
Plenty food for thought there thanks lads .My thoughts now is to try a 10"x8"planer thicknesser and try to see if I get away with lifting tables and if not then look for a separate thicknesser. I know I would just keep checking the tables went back the same each time and can see that doing my head in.
 
There are varying options depending on budget? The jet P/T their tables/fence lift as one, so less faffing. Scheppach only the outfeed table is moved.
 
I am watching this with great interest as I have a good PT but I am fed up with lifting the tables every time I need to thickness. I just need convincing to spend the money and get separates.
 
Claud1":2dmrpow6 said:
I am watching this with great interest as I have a good PT but I am fed up with lifting the tables every time I need to thickness. I just need convincing to spend the money and get separates.
Why not just add a separate thicknesser? Keep the PT as just a planer :)
 
Yes I have been toying with the idea of getting a new surface planer so I will have a longer table as it would suit my needs more but that means I will have to remove the tables from the old machine as they stick out too far when I'm thicknessing.
 
I will start with an apology. I'm completely biased in my views. I have owned a lift up table planer Thicknesser and could never get it to work properly. I was rather green when I bought it brand new. However, after limited success and being an engineer I started to look at both its attributes and failings. The planer must have beds that remain absolutely in line with each other and in line and parallel with the spindle. It they don't, your wasting your money. My now, standard test when advising others is to sit on the far extremity of each table and check with a straight edge if it moves relative to the other table if they dont DO NOT BUY IT. The concept of a lifting table and the principle of repeatable settings is very hard to achieve. The older machines and the Sedgwick machines do not lift up. They have good solid castings that keep everything exactly where it should be. Bent plate, with a few welded bits will not in most cases achieve this level of stability, but it s a lot cheaper to make. Steel plate is circa £470 a tonne at the moment, so a 25OkG machine made from it is circa £125 of raw material.

I took the manufacturer of my first machine to the small claims court claiming that it was not fit for purpose. After a long period and lots of work, I walked out having proved my case with a wad of cash.

If you cannot afford a Sedgwick or similar, wait, save up and buy a machine that will do the job properly. Fancy colours, gauges don't plane the wood straight. You need solid aligned tables with the spindle. This is best achieved with castings. See comments on Wadkin, Wilson, Robinson machined etc. and see how they are built.
 
gwr":29zzgdc4 said:
Plenty food for thought there thanks lads .My thoughts now is to try a 10"x8"planer thicknesser and try to see if I get away with lifting tables and if not then look for a separate thicknesser. I know I would just keep checking the tables went back the same each time and can see that doing my head in.

I know exactly where you are coming from. I'm not sure why even the likes of Hammer have liftable beds. There is one school of thought that advocates liftable beds because then there is no chance of fingers getting crushed between the outfeed support roller and the timber being fed through by the thicknesser. Personally I like the way my Sedgwick works. Bloody good solid fence as well.

I started off like many on here with the excellent Axminster CT150 and a Delta thicknesser. I eventually outgrew them and although I sold the CT150 I had no takers for the Delta at the time and in hindsight I am so glad that I still have it for there are many times when I am thicknessing shorter stock or thinner stock or more delicate stock and the little Delta is brilliant at handling that. The Sedgwick is a bit to brusque for the small stuff!
 
Rodger I would take the small sedgwick at the right price in a heartbeat not too much room in my shop/shed at the minute but I hope to build a new one in the near future hopefully this year.
So the sedgwick doesn't like thin or short timber?
 
gwr":3qqgj3n6 said:
.... So the sedgwick doesn't like thin or short timber?

Minimum length is defined by the distance between the two rollers. The Delta are closer together. You can use shorter stock and thinner stock on either machine if you stick it down with double sided tape on a sled. IIRC I can;t wind the Sedgwick table up to less than 10mm
 
Back
Top