# Tyzack router plane question



## nabs (14 May 2017)

I got hold of a Tyzack router plane last year - I cleaned it up and stuck it on a shelf where it has sat since then. Last week I actually had a job where I could use it, only to find out it would not cut. In the end it was not difficult to fix - the first problem was that although the iron was sharp it had a back bevel that stopped it cutting. After I corrected that it would cut but not very cleanly as the sole was not at all flat - it had a small twist and a hump in the middle.

it did not take long to flatten and it works nicely now, but I have noticed something else odd. As far as I know the plane is a copy of a preston model that allowed the iron to be reversed or mounted on the handle posts, and indeed it has channels for the iron at each of these points.

What is odd is that these other slots are not as deep as the primary one, and this means the iron will not engage with the adjusting wheel (see pic).

I think I must be missing something obvious - who can enlighten me?

PS the only reference I could find to this plane says the sole was "brassed" - does anyone know how/why? (no evidence of brass colour on my sole,btw).


----------



## AndyT (14 May 2017)

How odd.

I can't see a good reason for that. Maybe it's just a machining error that slipped through. I'd like to say that I have one to compare, but that's not likely now that nice Mr Sellers has pushed the price up above £100.

How deep are the slots on the handle posts? If you unscrew a handle, can you insert the adjuster stem instead and use it in an end position, if you ever needed to?


----------



## nabs (14 May 2017)

all the slots, (bar the one that works!) - , including the ones in the handle posts - are shallow like the one in the pic. I haven't tried to measure them, but they all appear the same size. Wobbly sole aside, it does seem well made so I would guess it is by design. it is odd.

PS they do occasionally show up on ebay at a reasonable price but I had to wait for one that was in a very poor photo and just described as 'metal plane' (I got it for £44, which I think is good value!)


----------



## bugbear (15 May 2017)

Long ago, I saw one of these as a car boot (no blades, just the casting and handles), for £1.

I didn't buy it, because it wasn't Preston. Oops.

BugBear


----------



## Andy Kev. (15 May 2017)

This is probably a daft suggestion but could it be that a previous owner fitted the plane with a blade that is too big for the side posts i.e. the one you have is not the original?


----------



## MikeK (15 May 2017)

Is it possible that the channel in the handle is used to hold a fence?


----------



## DoctorWibble (15 May 2017)

Hi Nabs
I have one of these. I've just checked and on my copy the blade can be mounted easily enough in all four positions with the adjuster engaged. Mind you looking at the thing a bit more closely I can see that the slots do all vary a little in depth. I can see too that the second slot on my main pillar doesn't align with the main one. It's cut maybe a millimetre off centre. That's poor! Fortunately for me for me none of this sloppy machining appears material to the function of the plane and so I hadn't noticed it until now.
But - and this might make you feel better - that might've been because I've been too distracted by the twist in my sole which is severe enough to make the plane rock from corner to corner. I would hazard a guess that twist is a common hazard with this open frame casting and one of the reasons no-one (bar Tyzack) bothered copying a Preston design which, otherwise, has a lot going for it.
Anyway despite these being fairly rare (I think we can see why) I can't see any reason why you shouldn't attack your slots with a file and correct the dodgy machining. Obviously try and find a file with a safe edge so you don't accidently widen the slot as well as deepen it. But you can't really do a worse job than Tyzack considered good enough to box up and sell. 
Cheers
Ken


----------



## DoctorWibble (15 May 2017)

Another thought occurs. If you do file it deeper be sure to make sure that all the slots are in plane at right angles to the sole. Otherwise you'll get a poor cut in those that don't present the blade to the workpiece at the correct angle. I might have another look at my own one - I'm no longer confident Tyzack would've managed that from the factory. While I did play around moving the blade to the handle positions when I first got it but haven't as yet actually worked it in anything other than its normal position.


----------



## AndyT (15 May 2017)

I reckon this thread is a handy reminder that not all unusual, collectable tools are good to use. 

I suspect the extra cutting positions this model offered are one of those features that looked good in a catalogue but is actually no real advantage in practical usage.


----------



## bugbear (15 May 2017)

AndyT":2jvtuf2z said:


> I reckon this thread is a handy reminder that not all unusual, collectable tools are good to use.
> 
> I suspect the extra cutting positions this model offered are one of those features that looked good in a catalogue but is actually no real advantage in practical usage.



I don't quite follow your reasoning or conclusion; this thread is about manufacturing quality; the _features_ (for better or worse) haven't been touched on.

BugBear


----------



## AndyT (15 May 2017)

bugbear":1fc2dn6w said:


> AndyT":1fc2dn6w said:
> 
> 
> > I reckon this thread is a handy reminder that not all unusual, collectable tools are good to use.
> ...



Sorry, I'm veering off at a bit of a tangent. But if Nick only wants to use the ordinary, default cutter position on his router, then the under-machined grooves in the other positions don't matter. 

You can probably guess that I'm also working on convincing myself that I don't need one of these routers to do any routing!


----------



## Andy Kev. (15 May 2017)

AndyT":308c5uy5 said:


> I reckon this thread is a handy reminder that not all unusual, collectable tools are good to use.
> 
> I suspect the extra cutting positions this model offered are one of those features that looked good in a catalogue but is actually no real advantage in practical usage.



... unless of course you can perfect the design by engineering all the faults out of it, something which it appears a small US firm called Walke Moore Tools has done (at a price of course):

http://www.walkemooretools.com/shop/rou ... odel-2500/

It's had very good reviews and the side posts are modified in such a way that its usefulness appears to have been enhanced.


----------



## DoctorWibble (15 May 2017)

AndyT":3ezofl3s said:


> I suspect the extra cutting positions this model offered are one of those features that looked good in a catalogue but is actually no real advantage in practical usage.



I vaguely remember we've waltzed down this road before. Anyway I think you're largely right. The end positions are perpendicular to the main one which I found rather limits their usefulness. Besides once you're done with all the screwing and unscrewing of handles it's quicker just to pick up a chisel or fix the router to a wide base.


----------



## DoctorWibble (15 May 2017)

That boutique version looks to have fixed my gripe about the cutting direction on the outer positions. Interesting that they appear to use the same diagonally orientated cutter design as the Veritas/Stanley/Record routers. A sensible choice so long as they're the same size. Though I have to say a bit annoying from the pov of Preston/Tyzack owners. The biggest drawback of the Preston and Tyzack design is that no modern cutters fit and of course original cutters are impossible to find leaving you stuck with those that came with the plane when you found it.
Anyway however well engineered such Preston copies might be a conventional router with an added base will do the same thing for less money and probably less faffing around.


----------



## nabs (15 May 2017)

thanks all - I took another look today and all the other slots are wrong in the same way - they appear to have been milled (?) precisely and hold the iron vertically without any lateral movement, but they are not deep enough to allow the iron to engage with the adjustment wheel. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that it was not made properly. 

re. functionality, I am probably the least qualified to comment, but here goes! Being able to reverse the iron on the central post effectively gives you an open and closed throat router in one tool. Surely a good idea, if you are into that kind of thing!

the outward facing handle position could be useful on a long tenon, as it is quite a heavy plane and it would be easier to balance with more of it on the workpiece. Admittedly it would only work for reasonably deep shoulders since the so;e would interfere with the blade at smaller settings. I wonder if they had irons available with a slot cut in the side so they could be used sideways on?

Of course none of these wonders are available in my case!


----------



## AndyT (15 May 2017)

If they are *all* wrong, maybe you have the adjuster wheel from an ordinary No 71 router, but need a bigger one?


----------



## nabs (15 May 2017)

that is a good thought Andy, but they are all wrong _apart_ from the one on the central post that faces towards the closed throat, which is a perfect fit.


----------



## Sheffield Tony (15 May 2017)

nabs":30fu7h01 said:


> that is a good thought Andy, but they are all wrong _apart_ from the one on the central post that faces towards the closed throat, which is a perfect fit.



Perhaps that's the one that has been filed deeper to make an undersized adjuster work :wink:


----------



## AndyT (16 May 2017)

Sheffield Tony":2oetgg11 said:


> nabs":2oetgg11 said:
> 
> 
> > that is a good thought Andy, but they are all wrong _apart_ from the one on the central post that faces towards the closed throat, which is a perfect fit.
> ...



Now that sounds like a good explanation.

If Nabs and DoctorWibble could measure the adjusters, we could confirm the suggestion.
Nabs could make a bigger adjuster, or just manage without one if he ever does need to use the alternative positions.


----------



## bugbear (16 May 2017)

AndyT":2rolid52 said:


> Sheffield Tony":2rolid52 said:
> 
> 
> > nabs":2rolid52 said:
> ...



And this, boys and girls, is what forums are for!

BugBear


----------



## nabs (16 May 2017)

here we go:

the adjuster is 5/8'' diameter. 

The larger wheel from a 71 does indeed bridge the gap to the iron when it is in a narrow slot, but unfortunately the thread is not the same (it is only screwed on a couple of turns in the pic below). If the deeper slot was filed by hand to accommodate a smaller wheel, it was done very neatly!

Hopefully DoctorWibble has nothing better to do and we will hear back from his shortly!







71 adjuster and narrow slot:






deep slot:


----------



## DoctorWibble (16 May 2017)

Doctorwibble most likely does have better things to do but never misses an opportunity to engage in displacement activites. No excuse too small.
My wheel is 0.625. Same as yours.


----------



## DoctorWibble (16 May 2017)

Lets consider the likely manufacturing process for something like this plane. Do jump in if I get this wrong.
First of all Tyzack would've outsourced this to the lowest bidder. They didn't manufacture metal planes. I'm fairly sure that by this stage Tyzack were primarily a retailer.
We can start at the stage where the raw still warm castings are being cursorily checked for defects. Some annealing might then take place and then a rough clean up. Just like with our own timber prep the makers now need a reference face so the next job would probably be to grind the base flat. If budgets allowed some further annealing would be done after grinding and the base checked again for flatness. Rinse and repeat if necessary. Once flat the casting needs three accurate holes for studding being two for the handles and one for the height adjuster. And it needs four slots one for each of the possible cutter positions. All need to be in plane and at right angles to the base. the primary reference surface being the ground base makes this quite hard to get wrong. However the position of these holes and slots and the slot depth are likely referenced from an edge. Given a bit of variability in casting sizes (shrinkage) this makes placement and slot depth potentially less accurate than perpendicularity unless special attention is devoted to each plane. Relaxing the machining tolerances here would potentially save a lot of time but risks a few dodgy planes. So the last few holes can be drilled before painting and final assembly. Job done.
A few observations:
Its possible some or all of the annealing stages were omitted or foreshortened. Perhaps they failed to properly anneal after grinding which might go some way to explaining the twisted soles. 
Checking the fit in each of the four positions would've been time consuming so probably wasn't done.
A wider wheel in combination with a deeper slot in the cutter would've given them the machining leeway they wanted without risking dodgy planes. This though is often the kind of improvement that comes later as production experience builds. Maybe no-one really cared or maybe they weren't made for very long.


----------



## AndyT (16 May 2017)

Now we know that both examples have the same size adjuster, and it's not the same as the one from a No 71, I think it's safe to conclude that both adjusters are original.

I'm also convinced by the good doctor's description of the likely manufacturing process. These would have been milled on a machine totally dependent on the skill and attention of the operator, who was most likely on piece work and bored out of his mind. 

If the lucky owners want to use slots where the threaded adjuster won't help, they can still adjust the cutter the alternative way, by slackening the collar a touch and tapping the cutter with a little hammer.


----------



## nabs (17 May 2017)

thanks for the explanation DoctorWibble - the edges on my plane do not appear to have been ground and are very rough, so i think it is very plausible that the narrow slots are the result of measuring from these unreliable reference points. I will keep an eye out for something I can repurpose as a larger adjuster wheel.

Incidentally, what you will know as an owner of one, but others may not, these routers were made/factored by Joseph Tyzack, Meersbrook Works and not W. Tyzack, Little London Works prolific maker of the 'elephant' brand saws.

Apparently the legs of man logo was adopted after he set up working with the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company:

http://www.seven-square.com/dert/Tyzack_trail.htm

http://www.tyzack.net/hackney.htm

some more info here, including some interesting info into Rapper Swords made by Joseph and co.

http://huk1.wkfinetools.com/01-BritishS ... ory-02.asp

*Warning* fellow tool fiddlers, even a cursory search into the Tyzacks will take you to: 

http://trowelcollector.blogspot.co.uk/2 ... n-ltd.html

... and there is a _lot_ of trowel related info here, some of which you quite probably do not need to know!


----------



## DoctorWibble (17 May 2017)

Wonder if between us we can tie down dates for the Tyzack plane?
The Preston original was patented in 1907. If that patent was maintained for the full twenty years (assuming max length has never varied) then it could've lasted until 1927. So 1927/8 seems the earliest possible date for the Tyzack copy. Their scarcity though doesn't suggest a long production run and I've seen a few boxed examples and a few others which look relatively new. Boxed tools always look to me like an amateur sale and that would imply to me 1950's or even 1960's. But all this is speculation. Anyone seen catalogues?


----------



## DoctorWibble (17 May 2017)

Actually I suppose talk of production dates could be wide of the mark. If it was a slow seller, which seems certain, then perhaps there was only ever one "production run". Its not hard to imagine Tyzack ordering in 500 of the things then taking 20 years to sell them. If they got bored looking at them cluttering their warehouse perhaps they eventually discounted a remainder stock to clear it which could go some way to explaining the small number of recent looking and virtually unused examples which are still out there. Impulse buys at a bargain price of a tool which the buyer then finds little use for. But still it would interesting to figure the dates when it could be bought new.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (17 May 2017)

The Tyzack dynasty is complicated - more here; http://www.riversheaf.org/sheafrwp/?page_id=3440 

The Tyzacks split their business into three separate entities, as far as I can tell. Joseph Tyzack and William Tyzack have already been mentioned, but there was also the firm that later became Tyzack, Sons and Turner ('Nonpareil' and elephant brand saws, among other things). This firm still exists, I think, though no longer making tools. The last Tyzack Sons and Turner plc saw was made in 1990, I gather.

There's a further complication, in that there was a retail business in London using the Tyzack name. I'm not sure whether there was a family connection, but I suspect there probably was at some point!

Edit to add - the 'three legs of Man' trademark is still in use, now part of the Spear and Jackson empire - http://www.spear-and-jackson.com/


----------



## nabs (17 May 2017)

the 1940 catalogue does not contain the plane - the intro confirms they are still making things at the Meersbrook Works in 1940, and that the firm was founded in 1837

https://archive.org/details/J.TyzackAnd ... ogue71.1MB


----------



## nabs (17 May 2017)

nor in this 1963 catalogue (By which time Brades, Skelton & J. Tyzack had merged to form B.S.T. They still have '3-leg' branded tools though...

http://huk1.wkfinetools.com/01-BritishS ... ackCat.asp


----------



## DoctorWibble (17 May 2017)

"Each tool is thoroughly examined and tested by experts before leaving the Factory, and comes to you fully guaranteed for Quality and Workmanship. ."

Send it back Nabs!


----------



## Cheshirechappie (17 May 2017)

Done a bit more rummaging.

Seems there were three Sheffield Tyzack businesses, all originating from the same family roots. Joseph Tyzack, W.A.Tyzack and W.Tyzack, Sons and Turner. There was another brach of the family (Henry Tyzack) who moved to London in the mid 1800s, founding another dynasty. BPM2 lists two London firms, Henry Tyzack (53 Old Street), and S.Tyzack (Samuel, later Samuel and Son) at 153 Shoreditch, later 8 Old Street, and sometime about 1926 til 1976 at 341-345 Old Street. There was also another, C.W.Tyzack, close to the others; according to the Hackney Tools link, it's still going, though not under Tyzack family ownership.

From somewhere (it may have been a freebie with a woodworking magazine) I have a copy of catalogue dated 1990 from Romany Tyzack. They list 4 companies;

Romany Tyzack, 52-56 Camden High Street
Parker Tyzack, 107 Rushey Green, Catford
Parry Tyzack, 329 Old Street and 15 Borough High Street (this was the holding company, according to the catalogue)
Hall Tyzack, 88-92 Merton High Street, and five other locations - Bath, Bristol, Taunton, Cardiff and Plymouth.

(Romany Tyzack's main business was cabinet fittings, but they offered tools too. The catalogue illustrates Ulmia try-squares, Perfect pattern screwdrivers, and London pattern turnscrews (3" - 18" blades). This must be the latest catalogue offering new London pattern turnscrews I've seen.)

So - London Tyzack history gets complicated!

I know that between the wars, one of the London Tyzacks (S.Tyzack) offered small modelmaker's metalturning lathes under the brand name 'Zyto', which they made themselves - http://www.lathes.co.uk/zyto/index.html . It could well be that they offered other tools made in the same workshop. It's also the case that many engineering firms were looking for any work they could get in the 1920s and 1930s.

I'll place a small bet that the router in question was made either by S Tyzack, or by an unknown engineering company for one of the London Tyzack ironmongery businesses. That would explain it's shortcomings - someone was working outside their usual field of expertise, and did the job at a low price just to get some work. Perhaps if anyone can locate any Tyzack of London advertisments in 1920s or 1930s woodworking magazines, they might yield an answer?


----------



## DoctorWibble (17 May 2017)

S Tyzack might be a good shout. If they got on. Families and all that. I have a very well made steel brace branded S Tyzack. They may not have made it of course but if they did that would take a great deal more skill than a router plane. 
I'm not sure though that I'd blame the firm that actually made these planes or their workers. I'll post some pictures of my Tyzack and the Preston version so you can compare. The Preston doesn't look, on the face of it,to be much better but the blade seats far more securely in the wheel. I suspect this is an issue with reverse engineering someone else's design. You have to create your own drawings. And you have to calculate the tolerences the maker needs to quote you for. Make them too tight and its too expensive. Too loose and the product will have problems. Optimising this probably takes some thought and some testing. Perhaps Tyzack when they commissioned the drawings (or did them themselves) didn't allow enough time for that kind of refinement. I think I'm right in saying that often practice production prototypes and practice production runs would be made in order to prove (amongst other things) that the tolerances were tight in the right places and only in the right places. A low volume plane might not have merited (in the eyes of Tyzack) such treatment.


----------

