Fabricated steel bellframes

[andrewmbull <a.bull@s...>]

Very interesting post and picture. I see from the photo that Ripple 
bells have all had their canons removed. The weights are given on 
David Bagley's site as:

1. John Rudhall, Gloucester, 1808, 7-1-5 
2. John Rudhall, Gloucester, 1807, 5-3-21 
3. John Rudhall, Gloucester, 1808, 6-2-0 
4. John Rudhall, Gloucester, 1808, 6-2-10 
5. John Rudhall, Gloucester, 1808, 9-0-0 
6. John Rudhall, Gloucester, 1808, 12-0-0 in F sharp
(Data:Walters 1930, C.J.Pickford 1993)

Can anyone (hopefully CJP !) say where these weights came from ? Are 
they still valid, after the removal of the canons ?

Andrew Bull



--- In bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com, "Christopher Povey" 
<cmpovey at 3...> wrote:
> Like Christopher Dalton, this is my maiden speech, too!
> 
> Discussion re fabricated steel bellframes
> 
> The information on early all-steel bellframes is interesting. Just 
in case it is thought Taylors were too bound up with their superb 
cast-iron framesides to consider making a fabricated steel bellframe, 
they did actually dip their toes into this pool. I came across an 
example at Ripple in Worcestershire. Taylors rehung the John Rudhall 
6 in 1920 and provided this frame to hang them in. I enclose a photo. 
The frame is beautifully made. Indeed, it was the build-quality that 
caused me to think it must have been made by a company well-versed in 
bells and bellframes. But Taylors? Surely not! I asked Chris Pickford 
if he knew whether Taylors made an all-steel frame and he said he 
wasn't aware of anything of this type from Taylors. But he said he 
was soon to be checking Taylors' records on another subject and would 
look up Ripple. He rang me after this visit and said the bellframe 
drawings were in the Ripple file. Taylors may have constructed it for 
experimental purposes and there may be another one or two elsewhere.
> 
> The existence of other early fabricated steel bellframes does beg 
the question about whether these frames should be accorded some sort 
of special recognition, on account of their rarity. If English 
Heritage is currently objecting to the possible removal of a (poor 
example of a) Taylor 'tall A' frame of 1887, because there are only 
about 80 left, then a Taylor fabricated steel frame must be 
priceless; similarly G&J and M&S frames of that type, particularly if 
they are well-designed and well-constructed. If there were to be a 
proposal to remove the Ripple frame for something else, then this 
might go through without objections. Until recently, its manufacturer 
wasn't known (or had been forgotten); not even the DAC Bells Advisor 
was aware. Would EH go out of its way to investigate its pedigree? 
There are lots of older and more-easily identified items around and 
there is only so much time in the working week. While these frames 
probably take on the listing of the building to which they are 
attached, by virtue of them being fixtures, they don't have any 
individual protection. In the meantime, they could suffer corrosion 
and other manner of degradation, and slowly become scrap. While we 
should be looking after the frames of yesterday, we should also be 
recognising those items of today that will become historical gems of 
tomorrow. Perhaps the CCC Committee members among us could comment on 
the possibility and/or advisability of achieving some sort of listing.
> 
> I guess the reasons for the current trend in fabricated bellframes 
are primarily cost (cast-iron sideframes are expensive and welding 
now makes fabrication quick and cheap) and secondly DIY (Stephen Ivin 
made the sideframes for St Thomas, Oxford, for instance).
> 
> Chris Povey.