charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dwindows-1252" http-equiv=3DContent-Ty=
pe><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"><!DOCTYPE =
HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "=
-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2014.210" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Like Christopher Dalton, this is my maiden speech,=
=20
too!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2><STRONG>Discussion re fabricated steel=20
bellframes</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>The information on early all-steel bellframes is intere=
sting.=20
Just in case it is thought Taylors were too bound up with their s=
uperb=20
cast-iron framesides to consider making a fabricated steel bellframe, they =
did=20
actually dip their toes into this pool. I came across an example at Ripple =
in=20
Worcestershire. Taylors rehung the John Rudhall 6 in 1920 and provided this=
=20
frame to hang them in. I enclose a photo. The frame is beautifully made. In=
deed,=20
it was the build-quality that caused me to think it must have been mad=
e by=20
a company well-versed in bells and bellframes. But Taylors? Surely not! I a=
sked=20
Chris Pickford if he knew whether Taylors made an all-steel frame and he sa=
id he=20
wasn't aware of anything of this type from Taylors. But he said he was soon=
to=20
be checking Taylors' records on another subject and would look up Ripple. H=
e=20
rang me after this visit and said the bellframe drawings were in the Ripple=
=20
file. Taylors may have constructed it for experimental purposes and there m=
ay be=20
another one or two elsewhere.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>The existence of other early fabricated steel bellframe=
s does=20
beg the question about whether these frames should be accorded some sort of=
=20
special recognition, on account of their rarity. If English Heritage i=
s=20
currently objecting to the possible removal of a (poor example of a) Taylor=
=20
'tall A' frame of 1887, because there are only about 80 left, then a Taylor=
=20
fabricated steel frame must be priceless; similarly G&J and M&=
S=20
frames of that type, particularly if they are well-designed and=20
well-constructed. If there were to be a proposal to remove the Ripple =
frame=20
for something else, then this might go through without objections. Until=20
recently, its manufacturer wasn't known (or had been forgotten); not even t=
he=20
DAC Bells Advisor was aware. Would EH go out of its way to investigate its=
=20
pedigree? There are lots of older and more-easily identified items around a=
nd=20
there is only so much time in the working week. While these frames probably=
take=20
on the listing of the building to which they are attached, by virtue of the=
m=20
being fixtures, they don't have any individual protection. In the meantime,=
they=20
could suffer corrosion and other manner of degradation, and slowly become s=
crap.=20
While we should be looking after the frames of yesterday, we should also be=
=20
recognising those items of today that will become historical gems of=20
tomorrow. Perhaps the CCC Committee members among us could comment on the=20
possibility and/or advisability of achieving some sort of listing.</FONT></=
DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>I guess the reasons for the current trend in fabricated=
=20
bellframes are primarily cost (cast-iron sideframes are expensive and weldi=
ng=20
now makes fabrication quick and cheap) and secondly DIY (Stephen Ivin made =
the=20
sideframes for St Thomas, Oxford, for instance).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Chris Povey.</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>