Monday, May 7, 2018

Real men don't read instructions...

They fake it! ...There I said it! :-)

Our weather has been pretty good for a while, which means lots of outside works in our yard to attend to.
This year, the plan is to cut down trees around the property to fence it, in order for Rudy to roam free range in the yard and keep black bear and deer's out of the yard,  And a few other critters also..
Of course, you just cannot build a wall high enough to keep squirrels away.

So after figuring out my property lines from markers to markers, a few trees went down, mostly young poplar saplings.
Figured out where our new shed will be built, while the old one has to remain until new one is ready.
A few more trees down, and wild black berries bushes (ouch)

There was also some cleaning up around the property following big winds this winter.

All that to say, that my current fire pit is wholly inadequate and has outlived its service life, need a new one.


So since we are in the yard landscaping mode, figured out the general layout and what kind of fire pit to put.

A short trip to the lumber yard later, back home with a fire pit kit to install in the yard.


Hum, took a fork lift to load it, not coming out of the truck in one piece...

A few trip later, every pieces has been moved, were it would lays for a few days.


My own version of Stonehenge :-)

Days later, put t down the ring and layed out the bottom row pieces (three (3) rows of 22 pieces)
I did not count the pieces, I just lay them around the ring until it went around. Had to be 22 pieces, right? (big fat assumption)

Cut around the perimeter of those rocks, leaving a wider margin for the bedrock layer.



Removed all the pieces and the ring, dug all around the hole and everything in between, roughly levelling the bottom sand layer under the top soil. All the removed soil, went to the fruit beds area, for upcoming expansion.



Late last week, got an excavator mouth full of crushed rocks into the bed of our truck, that load stayed on the truck until today when we finally got back to it.

The rock crusher at the pit

Feeling small in between the machinery

One mouth full from excavator is all it take to fill us.

One mouth full to go



One long week end trip to the city later, to attend to the First Halifax African Violets Society
show and sale.  It was Heather last AVs club, I stayed on as secretary.
Both Jean and I are members

We had a fair amount of rain lately, but none was showing in my sand hole, everything drained perfectly.

Leveled the sand, brought the gravel from the truck spread and level, Ready for installation.

Put the ring back and started at one end, level each pieces as I went around, first itself and then to each other etc. as I went around. Again , no counting, just putting them around as they fit.

On the third layer, the last piece did not quite fit, and Jean asked me why we had extra pieces left HUH? yes, 4 middle layer, and two for the top cap.  Count my pieces around, I have 20, not 22 ..??:&^$%#@


No way this will fit...

Read the instructions, and sure enough, it says 22 per rows. Tabarnouche!
Took all the lovely pieces off, took off the ring, enlarged the hole, lays more rocks, level, spread rocks to fit 22, re-levels each lovely pieces again all around, put back the next two layers everything fit as it should. And the ring? You are suppose to centered it, since there is an air gap between the rocks and the metal ring, which did I mentioned is lovingly heavy??

More gravel from the truck

Re-Re-level the foundation layer and each pieces around
were leveled (again) one by one and to each other

As indicated by my trusty
SW Stanley No 0 level.
And yes, I used my reference 48 in level to ensure, it read true

Tada!! Done, for now, more work around it coming.
Including seating area




And there you go, more top soil moved, more rocks from the truck, and my back is now out.
Bring on the Voltaren extra strength Babe :-)


Oh, and the infamous instructions? Well, maudit Calise y'arais pas put dire tout de suite qu' y aurais in Tabar.. de gap entre les deux Ostie de morceaux Grrrr. See, that's why I don't bother with instructions, they pissed me off :-)

Besides I wrote instructions for a living, I don't have to read them Ha ha , Yah right fool....:-)
SO there you go men, you don't to have to read instructions, but if everything else fail, give them a scan.


Bob, resting his sore ass, err back


Tuesday, May 1, 2018

Siegley or Stanley?

I blog about the Siegley planes before, I happened to have two (2) in my collection.
I have  a No 5 Jack plane and Combination plane No 2.

My two (2) Siegley, Stanley made in New Britain or Roxton Pond
in the then new Roxton Pond Tool & Mill Co plant alongside Stanley new plant


There is not much information on line about these, and what you found mostly repeated itself and mentioned briefly that Stanley bought them and produced some of their planes in house until the 1920s, some sources mentioned 1927.

While I was researching the story of Stanley in Canada, I came across references that mentioned that one of the reasons why Stanley bought Roxton Pond Tool & Mill  Company was because their workers were already manufacturing Siegley copies of planes, and were therefore familiar with Stanley products.  Huh?? The Siegley planes I'm familiar with (see above pic) are quite different than the Stanley Bailey models. What gives?

I recently bought a copy of the book: Plane makers of Wikes-Barre Pensylvania: Jacob Siegley, Edwin Hann, Keystone Tool Works, from John Rumph and I learned a few more pieces of the puzzle, but it still leave more to be learned about the Roxton Pond involvements with them. Which models were they making and for how long?

The book in question with Rudy for a scale reference :-)


I thought that there was only 3 flavours of the Siegley planes, turns out there are five (5) ...
Siegley, Hann, Stanley AND Keystone Tool Works, AND one more; Roxton Pond Tool & Mill Co. The plot thicken... Oh and make that 6 if you count those Hann planes marked GAR, but that was a hardware dealer brand, not maker (Hann)

Now to confuse us even more, there are two different models of the “Siegley” bench planes, the one patented by Jacob Siegley (like my No 5 model) Siegley patent No 510096 of  Dec 5th 1893 AND a close copy of the Stanley Bailey models ( First patented in 1867) Biggest difference with the Bailey models are the frog and the one piece twisted lateral lever.
Which ones was being made in Roxton Pond? The original Siegley or the Bailey copies, or even possibly both??

These are the Bailey clones I'm talking about, the SsS, StS, SbS and etc series.
They are based on a Bailey Type 9 frog, which I believed never changed during their production. That is never had the frog adjuster screw (Type 10).
Only other differences is the lever cap being plain and the lateral lever is a one piece twisted lever.
In case you are wondering, following my last PC crash, my scanner is still not operational  

Note that this line of planes has two slight variations on the Bailey pattern, the StS has a tapered iron, which of course necessitated a larger mouth opening. You can retrofit a thinner iron (SsS) for a tapered one (StS) but not vice versa.
This tapered iron was as a nod to older carpenters who still preferred this type of irons.

After Stanley bought Siegley in 1901, they continued making these Siegley models until roughly 1927 (Year they were discontinued). Stanley Rule and Level of New Britain Connecticut, established a new company, called Siegley Tool Company of New Britain Connecticut to manufactured and marketed these.

Meanwhile Edward Hann (relationship with Jacob Siegley unknown) somehow negotiated some agreements at the time Siegley sold to Stanley, for parts, fixtures etc used to manufactured the original Siegley bench plane models. Hann would be making these planes from 1902-1919.
Note it was long believed that Hann did not start until 1908, but John Rumpf research for his book, found evidences that he was making planes as early as 1902, which would made senses.

The Keystone Tool Works factory was part of the Gates Foundry and was making the cast pieces for Hann planes. They also made very similar planes under their own label from 1913-1917.
That foundry was also probably making the original castings for Siegley previously.

Roxton Pond Tool & Mill Co was established in 1904 and started making planes in 1905.
Although they were still making wooden planes in the well established Roxton Pond’s traditions, they were established with the purpose of getting into the new fangled metallic bench planes production. A foundry was built in1906 for that purpose. Which model did they first produced?
It may very well had been a licensed (?) copy of the original Siegley plane.  It was lighter, less castings, less machining (hence cheaper to produce than a Bailey copy) and it was, in its day, quite popular. We know that they also made transitional planes (near copies of Stanley), being made of less and smaller castings, it would also been a good one to get started on making metallic planes.

That so called Roxton plane, is a transitional made by Roxton Pond Tool & Mill Co

It would had made sense to cut their teeth's into this new business (making metallic planes)
The following year, in 1907 Stanley bought them, and build  a new factory near the new Roxton Pond Tool & Mill Co plant. Rather than wasting the new wooden factory which was only 3 years old at the time, they manufactured “Siegley” planes in it until the 1920’s.

In his book Rumph mentioned that at some point during the teens to 1920’s some or all of the Siegley Tool Company (New Britain Ct) line was manufactured in Canada. Stanley discontinued the Siegley line in 1927.

So Stanley made’s Siegley planes were first made in New Britain Connecticut (1901) then in Roxton Pond Quebec, Canada (1907).  At that time did Stanley continued with their production concurently in New Britain, or did they shifted everything to Roxton Pond??

That Jacob Siegley design for a plane sure got around. What made it so popular that it was made alongside the Bailey design for a while by Stanley?

It was in a bid to capitalise on the good reputation of Siegley.
It is a lighter, sturdy, yet simple design. The side walls of the planes are tapered inside, it is thicker at the bottom. You can feel that difference easily with your fingers.

For comparisons, I am using a US made Stanley Bailey No 5 Type 11 (1910-1918)
The things we do in our kitchen under the guise of research...
Yes Dear, breakfast is almost ready, just weighing some ingredients  :-)

The Siegley No 5 weight in at 3.074 pounds
And yes, some previous owner drilled 4 holes on one side wall,
probably to attach a user made fence


The equivalent Stanley Bailey No 5 of a similar period
weight in at a whooping 1 pound more!!
Quite noticeable in your hands and while planning...trust me.



The frog is a simple piece which is permanently fixed to the bed of the planes via metal pins on each sidewalls. It used the then expired Bailey patent to adjust the iron in and out, but Bailey lateral aduster was still under patent protection (by Stanley, when this plane was patented), so they devised a unique system, requiring a narrow slot off sided to the left on the blades.

The pinned frog assembly is only touching the bed at the very bottom at the mouth.
The frog assembly is pinned at the bottom and near the top of the side wing.

The blade is only contacting the frog surface at three (3) points. One at the bottom on a large land where the cap will clamp down the blade and two (2) at the top on small surfaces near the lateral lever. These protrusion also acts as a stop for the lateral lever



Siegley never patented this lateral adjuster, so Hann was free to used it in his plane after Stanley bought Siegley. One surprising feature of Siegley design is that the frog is bedded a lower angle than Stanley and Al, which are predominantly all bedded at 45 degrees.  Siegly used a 40 degrees angle.
That translate into more of a shearing cut than a scraping cut and works great on soft wood, but it could easily be challenged by some difficult hardwood, which prefers a higher pitch (50).

The two side by sides, you can clearly see the lower angle of the Siegley frog.
Notice also that the rear tote is smaller, not as high as the Bailey.

My big hands fit well within the Bailey handle.
My middle finger barely reach the small  adjusting nut.
I preferred the older larger ones. 

In contrast, on the smaller Siegley tote, my fingers are a bit crowded,
but I can easily reach the same size adjusting nut


BTW the adjusting nuts on both planes look exactly alike, sizes, knurling etc.
Make senses since these were both made by Stanley

And sure enough they both measured the same 0.999
Lets called it one (1) inch :-)

Perhaps its long run was due to its simplicity of construction which required a smaller and simpler frog to manufactured. Compared to a similar Bailey model, it is both lighter and cheaper to manufactured, having simpler parts and a lot less machining involved.
Unlike most metallic planes competing with the Bailey design, it uses a single iron (no cap iron) , but make uses of the lever cap (wedge), come chip breaker, thanks to a patented screw adjustment that bear on the retaining bar. Because it was patented, and sold to Stanley, Hann had to redesign slightly the lever cap / chip breaker.

But does it work “as good as” a Bailey?  In my limited experiences, it is a good performer, with the limitation noted above due to its lower pitch on the frog.

Having a fixed frog, and no double iron, it is very easy and fast to adjust. The only qwirk I found, was since the lever cap is adjusted to set the position of the chip breaker with two small screws on it, everytime you adjust the blade in or out, the lever cap being fixed, change that position.
If you are one of these guys that sweat the perfect position for your chip breaker down to some insanely small levels, it would drives you crazy...
As for me, I long stopped sweating the small stuff, so I can live with it :-)

Besides their lines of bench planes, from smoother to jointer, they also manufactured a block plane, a combination block/rabbet/shoulder plane (pretty rare apparently) and a combination moulding plane,  which some of its DNA would make it into the infamous Stanley No 45 and Vice Versa.  When Stanley (Roxton Pond) was making it they changed the size of the posts to a slightly larger diameter, the same as the Stanley No 45...

My Siegley combination plane No 2, seen with the short rods,
used the same size as my Stanley No 45, how convenient :-)

The shape of the casting below the adjustment nut is now gently sloped.
On the Siegley made ones, that side has a pointed shape toward the locking nut on the top

So turns out that the Roxton Pond Tool & Mill Co / Stanley Tool of Canada made these, the No 45 and the No 55


So how can you tell which bench planes are which??
Turns out they are tell tales changes.

Siegley
The original Siegley's had a adjustable mouth aperture. A small plate in front of the mouth facing the blade could be moved in and out to adjust the mouth opening. Slacken two (2) screws and adjusted it, then tighten the screws
That feature disappeared in the later model
These models have little markings on them. or a discreet logo on the blade or wood fence
They had the Number of the plane cast on the lever cap

Hann
The lever cap does not have the two (2) set screws on the lever cap
Later models would have an adjustable plate at the bottom of it to adjust the "chip breaker" position
Blades are stamped Hann

Stanley
All the ones made by the Siegley Tool Co (New Britain or Roxton Pond)  proudly advertised in big letters that they are SIEGLEY. On both blades and casting.
The lever cap has a stippled pattern



So mine clearly both marked SIEGLEY are not at all PRE-Stanley, they were made BY-Stanley...
I stand corrected... and will update my previous Siegley blog.

Much more to be learned, but here is hoping I helps cleared more confusion than I created...
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a few books to put back in my library...
.
The books I used primarily for gathering the information presented
along with my two (2 specimens) and whatever else I could find on line.

Bob, who needs to tidy up a bit before she comes back... Rudy, I needs some helps :-)







Wednesday, April 25, 2018

The Plane makers of Roxton Pond Part 2 Stanley Tools of Canada

In the first part, we looked at the pioneers plane makers who started the tradition in Roxton Pond.
Early in the 20th century, a fire and an unexpected auction outcome with a visionary clergyman possessing knowledge of tool making will combine into the creation of the...Stanley Tool Canada factory.


WILLIAMS S BULLOCK

William Stephen Bullock was born in Aug 1865 in Roxton Pond, son of William Henry Bullock, farmer, who was of Loyalist ancestry and Hanna Chartier (father Anglophone, mother Francophone).
He was the eldest child of 5 other siblings.

His Loyalist ancestor first established themselves in the township of Stanstead before moving to Abbotsford Qc around 1800.
But his grandfather, who lost a leg in a accident and was affected badly from asthma, happened to go to Roxton Pond on business and discovered that the ambient air was better for his asthma.
He sold his farm and moved the family to Roxton Pond. He would passed away 10 years later but his son (father of Stephen) would stay. 
It just so happened that they settled in a mostly francophone part of the town and between his mother side and the neighbourhood, Stephen becomes fluently bilingual at a young age. This will served him well during his political career.
The neighbourhood hamlets of Milton and Roxton Pond South were mostly Anglophones but that will gradually change with the arrivals of more Francophones starting in the middle 19th century.

Stephen Bullock at a young age

His father had a large undeveloped plot of 400 acres and was clearing the land (defricher) slowly in order to farm it (cultiver)
During Stephen early years, only about 10% of the lot was cleared. As a young man, Stephen would toil the land and tend to the livestocks.

In his youth some of his accomplishments foretell his future.
He performs solemn bird's burial rituals with his younger siblings (he would later become a Baptist minister)
He built a dam and a working miniature mill on a nearby creek and he also,
lays out about 1000 ft (300 M) of wooden tracks to run his miniature train. (He would become a toolmaker on a grand scale and dream of owning a railroad)
At 13, he start to show an interest in politics by following the 1878 electoral campaign. (He would be running in the 1912 election as a Liberal for the Township of Sheffield and be re-elected again and again)

At 15, on a whim, he decided he had enough of farm work and left unannounced to the States in order to seek work in a tool factory. The knowledge and experiences he gained would comes in handy later on.

At his father request, being old and unable to run the farm without him, Stephen comes back home.  He would be farming and clearing more land on his father farm until 1884, by then about three quarter (3/4) of the land had been cleared.

Stephen Bullock as a young man. Age unknown

At 19 he decided he wants to becomes a clergy minister.  He goes to Institut Feller and at 20 he is baptised.  After two (2) more years of study he volunteer in missionary works and his sent wherever he his most needed. 1887 we find him at McGill University in Montreal Qc studying to become a teacher.  Sickness will cut short his studies but he finds work as a minister in Quebec.
In his travel, working on fund raising to rebuilt a school,  he meet a group of business men in Toronto, who over a week, discussed with him matters of running a business and the problems of raising proper capitals.  He would later says this is how he learned how to run a business an deal with banks.

After some more studies at the Newton Theology Center, near Boston MA, he would marry in a Baptist church in Montreal Qc, Ellen-Evangeline Therrien (1869-1953) daughter of Pastor Alphonse de Liguori Therrien.
Back in Boston, their first child was born in Boston MA, he graduated with his diploma in 1891.
Following a post in Ottawa On and in Maskinonge Qc, he return to his natal Roxton Pond in 1897 as their Baptist Pastor. Upon his arrival, he would find the church, the presbytery, cemetary and the local school in disrepair.

He was paid $700 a year as the town Pastor (A lot of money in those days!) Having woodworking skills and smart business senses, he proceeded to fix up the buildings and to fenced in the church property.

The pastor Bullock with his family in 1906.
His new fence is showing
Fonds Valere Audy; Photo Granby Leader Mail, SHHY

Then, relying on past experiences on his father's farm, he set up maple syrup production using the 300 maples trees on the church grounds and built a sugar shack.
He wanted to expand production by buying the lot next door for sale at $500, but he did not had the funds. He got the funds from the Parish. He then cleared some of the land (12 acres) on this lot for resale to a member of the community in order to raise the funds to finance his enterprise.
The remaining trees on that lot gave him 12,000 more maple trees to greatly expand his maple syrup production.
While remaining their Pastor, he continued to prosper his growing ministry by the profits generated from the maple syrup production. He build what was for a time, the largest sugar shack in Quebec's maple syrup country, a 10 X 15 Meters shack.
In 1903 he bought a farm with 90 acres, of which 40 acres had 3000 mature sugar maples trees on it.
He now had a sugar maple field (erabliere) in the East and at the West of the village.
Combining both, he started marketing his sugar maple products outside the region, there is only a limited market locally, being lots of local producers.
He concocted a scheme to send 8 train cars full of his maple products to Winnipeg Mb. The Bank of Granby lend him $10,000 (about $200,000 today) and he made $2,100 profit on this enterprise.
This independent business would carry on for about 20 years before being merged (sold) to the United Maple Producers Association of Quebec in nearby Granby in 1921. At the time this association was handling over 12 millions gallons of maple syrup a year.  The Pastor was a good business man.

The stage is now set with the main actor...

Picture of Stephen Bullock, the Provincial elected representative
(depute du comte de Sheffield) 



THE ROXTON POND TOOL & MILL COMPANY




In the early 1900 the hydraulic power from the lake (Roxton Pond) was providing electrical power to the town (street light), the Sem Dalpe's factory, which had been passed on to A Monty and the SF Willard factory which was now closed. The Flour mill (of Louis Bachand) on Joseph Bousquet lot, which was powering the lights was damaged or burn down in 1904 and the property of Joseph Bousquet was sold at auction.
Bullock was attending the auction, and wanting to help the land owner get a better price, overbid by $200 the last bidder, hoping to raise more money for him. It backfired on him and he won the auction for $7,200.

This sale included:
Numerous land lots, including those bordering the lake, right of ways, mill and other constructions and dwellings.  Also included were the electrical dynamo that was permanently attached to the flour mill, and all the machineries. All the utility poles and wiring in the village to bring light to the house and business. Joseph Bousquet was the one who carried out the electrification of the village from 1902-04.
A grain hangar located on property of the Canadian National Railway in Roxton Pond south was also included.

He was not intended on winning the auction, nor did he had the money to buy it.
It was thanks to a $7,300 loan from the Baptism Mission de la grande ligne that he made good on his auction win.

Now what to do with it??
After a month travelling in Canada, looking for a project for his new property, he concluded that what was needed was a modern woodworking tool factory which could also handle working metal parts and not just wood, in order to manufacture the new metal planes (Bailey). He had the water power, the electric lights, a large qualified manpower in town, all he needed was more money.

What's in a name??
The Roxton Pond Tool & Mill Company reflect the purpose of the company, to make tool, here in Roxton Pond and also to keep the mill running which provides electrical light to the whole village.

With backing from bank and friends who believed in him, he started by building a 16 ft dam to regularise the water flow and increase the power for his new factory to be built.


The two (2) story factory, built of wood was started in 1904 at an estimated cost of $40,000
The Granby branch of the Eastern Township Bank and private investors, raised the $40,000 required.
Once built, he went to Toronto and Montreal to buy the machine tools and equipment that would be needed. Thanks to additional help from HC Miner of Granby (A well known and rich local businessman) who lend him another $40,000 and after going around the province to get more private investments from friends, he managed to raise another $40,000. By now he had enough money to meet his banks obligations and start to get the factory running.


The Roxton Pond Tool & Mill Co around 1904

About 1905, the first planes are made and the training of the work force, which numbered 40, has started. In 1906 a metal foundry is added, they can now cast their own metallic tools and parts.
Their first metallic plane look a lot like the Siegley SSS planes (made by Stanley) and their wooden planes transitional planes resembled the Bailey models (also made by Stanley)

The 42 in Diameter wooden penstock built by
the workers of the Roxton Pond Tool & Mill Co.
This new penstock in combination with the newly built dam,
would provide more constant
flow and increased power over the natural river.

The known imprints of the Roxton Pond Tool & Mill Co.
The No 35 shown above would had been a transitional No 35 (same as Bailey No 35)
I do not know (yet) how the metallic plane were identified.
Pic from my copy of Guide to Canadian Plane Makers & Hardware Dealers


His new company would be incorporated. HC Miner is the president, Bullock is the Secretary-Treasurer. Importance oblige, he becomes a member of the municipal council, position he will keep until Jan 1914. He ran in the 1912 provincial election as a Liberal and was elected for the township of Sheffield.  He would be re-elected again in 1916, 1919, 1923, 1927.
He has the distinction of being the first non Catholic candidate elected by a majority of Roman Catholic Francophone population in Quebec. His fluency in both official language, and personal knowledge of both cultures will served him well.
Then from 1931 until his death in 1936 he would serve in the Provincial cabinet in Quebec

Between his new business and his political duties, he tried to relinquish his pastoral duties earlier, but the parishioners did not want him to go. In Oct 1907 they finally accepted his demission as their pastor, but he never forgot about his parishioners.

THE STANLEY TOOL COMPANY OF CANADA

In a bid to get better access to the Canadian market which was in full expansion, Stanley decided to open a factory in Quebec. Why Quebec? It is not far in a straight line from New Britain Connecticut!
In prevision, they incorporated in Canada on the 7th Feb 1907 under the name Stanley Tool Company of Canada Limited.

In the Spring of 1907, Bullock heard rumours of the Stanley Rule & Level looking at setting up shop in Lachine Qc (Montreal). Instead of competing with Stanley, both HC Miner and Bullock, would rather invited them to set up shop here in Roxton Pond in their new factory.
At their invitation, the president of Stanley and two (2) other executives of the company came to Roxton Pond in June 1907 and a deal was struck.

Some of the considering factors for Stanley was the reputation of Roxton Pond as plane makers, a workforce that were currently making clones of their planes, hence familiar with their products and easy access to the market.

Stanley would buy the industrial installations of Bullock for $59,924, of this $5,000 goes to Bullock and $39,000 goes to the Eastern Township bank to repay the original loan. The remainders distributed to various creditors.
HC Miner and Bullock would be running the new business, the Canadian branch of Stanley, and Stanley would also buy back for a "very advantageous" price, the private investor's share in Bullock enterprise.

Instead of making use of the newly built wooden factory, Stanley opted to built a new stone masonry building to meet its industrial standard... and no doubt be easier to insure!
Starting in Jul 1907 the building No 1 would be built and railroads cars loads would then came from New Britain Connecticut with Stanley's machinery, equipment, molds, parts personnel etc.

 
The newly built Stanley plant in a 1908 view.
Building No 1 (main building 1907) to the Right, No 2 (woodworking shop 1908) to the Left
Note the utility poles and wiring for the electric lights in town,
now being furnished by the Stanley plant


The 50 or so first employees of Stanley Tool Canada.
in 1910.  Note the number of young boy up front.

and their salaries in 1911


The two factories: Roxton Pond Tool & Mill Co and the new Stanley plant, will continued to operate together until the early 1920s.  Stanley will continue producing tools made at the old plant. They would first used up the existing inventory at time of purchase, which means for a time they were selling both the metallic plane of Roxton Pond (clones of Stanley's Bailey planes) and the Stanley models.

In this collection of tools made in Roxton Pond, the rabbet plane (roughly in the middle)
has what look like a Stanley sticker or decals on it. I do not know if this is original, but if so, it would had been made at the Roxton Pond Tool & Mill Co. The others tools shown are from Dalpe, Monty and Willard 


About one year and a half ago I came across this piece of paper inside an early  Stanley Canada tool from the Stanley plant explaining who made what
Story of this find here


Pics from my collection

The label on the box still has the American address, but there is a small sticker glued on top saying Made in Canada. The enclosed sheet of paper reads;

PLEASE NOTE
This tool was made at the Canadian branch of the Stanley Rule & Level Company at the Roxton Pond Tool & Mill Company limited, Roxton Pond, Quebec, under the superintendence, ownership and trademarks of the said STANLEY COMPANY, and is fully warranted.

Later boxes will of course had the Roxton Pond address printed

Pic from my collection


This means that for a time, the A Monty, the Roxton Pond Tool & Mill Co and the new Stanley plant will co -existed in close quarters.  The Roxton Pond Tool & Mill Co would probably be demolished in the early 20s to make room for the 1924 expansion which saw Bldg No 14 addition to Bldg No 1.

In this 1946 view you can see the original Dalpe, now Monty (closed) factory
To the bottom left of the Stanley plant, at the base of the triangular roads, by the water.
It's the rectangular building. As usual click the pic to make them full size.



I half jokingly said earlier that Stanley decided to build a stone building over setting up inside the existing new wood structure in place, in order to find cheaper insurance :-)
But as you can see the original wooden factory build by Bullock did not go to waste.

Back in the days, and probably still so today, big business had to carry fire insurance. In order to be approved such coverage,  they drew detailed plans of the existing installations and made notes of the surrounding, detail of some of the water arrangements, pressure, quantity available, GPM, for sprinkler and etc.
Also the general disposition of the various sections involved in the manufacturing of the products (in this case, Stanley tools).

All that to say, thanks to such records, preserved in the archive of the Town of Roxton Pond, we can gain a detailed picture of the installations. Said records would be updated thru the years after every addition, removal of structures, etc.
The one shown here is the 1930 records.  From this date the facility would remain pretty well the same until the new building built besides it in 1966

The general views of the 1930 Fire Insurance plan.
Details below

The main road running parallel to the building, Milton road, would later be renamed to,
and is still to this day, Stanley Road. The "drive", from the water penstock is clearly shown:
A 1000 US Gal McDougall centrifugal pump providing a 100 pounds of pressure at 1140 RPMs.
The water turbine drive has a 10-27 ft of head and a surge tank at the entrance to the Bldg No 9 house. You can see water lines from this pumping station to the buildings, that's for the sprinkler system. This building No 9 Wheel house, also contain the electrical generator, there is a 3.5KVA transformer on poles besides it. The original electrical generator would had been located on the flour mill which was to the right of the plant


This is the original plan of where it all started with Sem Dalpe and SW Willard.
In red the Stanley plan location, in blue the approximate locations of Dalpe and Willard factory.
They both used the water power from the river.
The flour mill of Louis Bachand is showing bottom right
That water source from the lake, is the only reason, they all established themselves in the same area.
On the fire plan it does mention the location of a saw mill 300ft to the left (of red square)
That would be the saw mill associated with the old A Monty factory, which remains until 1965)

These perspectives and elevations views shows the usage of the buildings
and main elevation differences of the installation.
The pile in the middle of the yard, is the coal used by the forge for their castings and to feed a steam engine which seems to be used for the drying kiln besides

The original wooden water tower was replaced in 1930 by a metal one,
hence the 1930 revised plans.
Bldg No 14 addition to the Bldg No 1, has the forge at the bottom of it, with machine shops, and a lacquer dipping place. Yes, saws handles, planes totes and front knob, were lacquer dipped

This 1912 view shows the original wooden water tower


The 1930 metal water tower was removed in 1985, one year after the factory closure.



By 1921, the Stanley Tool of Canada was producing about 84% of the complete Stanley USA offerings, including the infamous Nos 45 and 55 plane contraptions (combination planes)

In 1924 Bldg No 14 was added to Bldg No 1 

The building in 1924, with the new addition.
Notice also the wooden covered passage way to Building No 2 on the ground floor.
There always was an upper covered passageway between the second floors 

In this 1980 picture, view from Stanley Road, the fire wall between both
No 1 and No 14 Bldgs is clearly seen. Roughly halfway between two utility poles

There are very few views of the inside of the building but thanks to a study done in 2013 on the state of the building by an engineering firm, Patri-Arch, we can get a glimpse of the structure inside.




One of the rare view inside the Stanley Tool Canada plant in 1950
The ducting is removing the swarf generated by the grinders/polishers.
We know from the fire plan, that grinding and polishing was done inside Bldg No 1
in the basement (the partial bottom 3rd floor), near the expansion of Bldg No 14
The 1911 list of workers, shows 4 polishers and one grinders. There are 6 work stations on this pic


The open spaces between the supports wooden columns
Page extracted from the Patri-Arch study
Notice the metal H beams supporting the new addition (Bldg No 14) in 1924

That initial workforce of 50 would remains fairly constant at 45-50, until 1930.
In 1942, during WWII, the workforce would increased to 103, which included: nine (9) women and a dozen (12) sales or representatives persons. The workforce itself is about eighty (80)



In 1953 the workforce would unionize under International Machinists Association, local 909, they will go on strike twice (2) first in Aug  1971, last in June 1974


In 1960 the repatriation of sales activity in Montreal to Roxton Pond, would increase the number of personnel, but not in the workforce, which remains around 50. The increase is due to the number of female emloyees which would number 30 in 1965.


By the 1960s the 50 plus years old installations are becoming badly obsolete and a new plant would be build in 1966. This would be the final expansion before the plant closed for good  in 1984. There would be an enclosed walkway between the old and the new building.


In this recent overhead shot from Google Maps, the new structure is the gray roof square building besides the old No 1 and 14 building with a green roof. The fire wall between both is also visible.
This new building is still in use by someone



During the strike of 1974, we learn that there are now 300 personnel employed, of which 258 are union. This represent the largest number of personnel recorded, by the time the factory would close in 1984, the workers would be back down to 50 or so.

After continuous operations since 1907, Stanley will invoke unfair competition from the Far east and close its door in 1984. By that time most of their hand tools operation had been switched over to England. The Bailey types planes are no longer manufactured in the US or Canada.

What is going to happen to the installations of the Stanley Tool of Canada?

Although stripped clean of all its machinery and equipment shortly after its closure,  except for a very brief period with Ranger Equipment (manufacturing safety helmets),  the plant has remained empty and in good condition all considered.

The Society Historique du Haut Yamaska (SHHY) has been trying for years to re-used the building and put in a tool museum telling the history of the Roxton Pond planemakers.
a few years back, in 2013, there was an assessment of the structures carried out by Patri-Arch on their behalf.


Shortly after, students of industrial architectures in Montreal were invited to come see and proposed different possible usage for the structure.


Nothing more seems to be happening since, I would suppose for a lack of funds.
It would be a shame to loose this important industrial complex from our recent past.



Credits

Except for the four (4) pictures identified as mine, all other came from the Societe d'Histoire de la Haute Yamaska (SHHY)  archives accessed on line.
The link to the building assessment and the students proposal for the building are copyrighted by their respective authors.



Assembled from various sources, but the vast majority of the information came from the work of SHHY members


Bob, the tool historian