Thicknessing - lunchbox vs P/T

[LancsRick]

Intrigued about this one...

I've got a restored Cooksley P/T, absolute lump of heavy old kmachinery and does a fab job of planing that I could only ever improve with a helical which I'm not bothering with. I've also spent a bunch of time and effort setting up the thicknessing aspect, and ended up with a truly minimal amount of snipe which I'm really pleased with.

So where am I going with this thread?

I've also got a lunchbox Triton P/T, which has the unique ability to take 230v and turn it into a level of noise that would shatter the world. But I digress...

It gives an absolutely brilliant finish, and can take far shorter material than the Cooksley. Plus it can reliable take fine material down to a few mm and still thickness it well.

So what's the view on the lunchbox vs P/T debate? I'm certainly in the camp that unless it's a chunky piece I go for the lunchbox, for that reason it's stayed in my workshop for years.

Interested in any and all experiences.

 

[Orraloon]

I had to google Cooksley as I had never seen one. It looks like a good solid bit of kit. Now to the question or my view of it. I got by for many years with just a lunch box thicknesser. True you have to start with a flat face but it does not have to be perfect. I used to knock off the high spots with an electric plane (sometimes just a hand plane) so it would sit without rocking on a flat surface. I did try a sled for a bit but it was more messing about and I was always worried the hot melt may give way half ways through the cut. These days I also have a surface planer so life is easier. I would say if you coulld only have the one then the thicknesser would be the pick. As to P/Ts they are not so common here in Australia but my view would be if you were to go that way then a good solid quality one or not at all.
Regards
John

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Many years ago I have a lunchbox Delta. I used it a half dozen times over the course of several years as it wailed like a demented banshee, and there were complaints from the next neighbourhood away. About 10 years ago I purchased a Hammer A3-31 jointer-thicknesser, which was my most expensive purchase at the time. There were several cheaper offerings available, but I was impressed by the build quality and reliability of Felder-Hammer (I had the N4400 bandsaw for several years at that time). The A3-31 has been simply amazing. And so quiet!

One of the reasons for the combo machine was that this was the most cost-effective way to purchase a 12" wide jointer (I had an 8" machine at the time). Plus takes up little space. Best of all worlds!

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Doug71]

My P/T is a big old Sedgwick, it's great but being I'm guessing 40+ years old it lacks a bit of refinement. One of the problems is if thicknessing anything under 10mm I need to first put a board on the thicknessing table which isn't ideal, plus it's a bit brutal on the thin pieces and the dust extraction doesn't work well.

I've recently been helping to clear out an old joiners workshop and was going to be selling some of the old machines, one of which is a lunchbox type thicknesser. @LancsRick you have got me thinking, I'm going to have a play with the old thicknesser and if it works down to 5 or 6mm I might keep it for myself as it will be handy at times