[Bell Historians] Re: Fabricated steel bellframes

Chris Pickford c.j.pickford at t...
Mon Dec 16 18:20:04 GMT 2002

Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

These are the Taylor weights of 1922 - one of those cases where exact weigh=
ts really do end in 0 ! Pre turning they were 7-2-19, 6-0-27, 7-0-2, 6-3-18=
, 9-2-11, 12-3-3. They're a really good six - one of John Rudhall's mistak=
es, despite what the irregular weights might suggest


----- Original Message -----=20
From: andrewmbull <a.bull at s...>=20
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com=20
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 2:32 PM
Subject: [Bell Historians] Re: Fabricated steel bellframes

Very interesting post and picture. I see from the photo that Ripple=20
bells have all had their canons removed. The weights are given on=20
David Bagley's site as:

1. John Rudhall, Gloucester, 1808, 7-1-5=20
2. John Rudhall, Gloucester, 1807, 5-3-21=20
3. John Rudhall, Gloucester, 1808, 6-2-0=20
4. John Rudhall, Gloucester, 1808, 6-2-10=20
5. John Rudhall, Gloucester, 1808, 9-0-0=20
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=20
they still valid, after the removal of the canons ?

Andrew Bull

--- In bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com, "Christopher Povey"=20
<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=20
in case it is thought Taylors were too bound up with their superb=20
cast-iron framesides to consider making a fabricated steel bellframe,=20
they did actually dip their toes into this pool. I came across an=20
example at Ripple in Worcestershire. Taylors rehung the John Rudhall=20
6 in 1920 and provided this frame to hang them in. I enclose a photo.=20
The frame is beautifully made. Indeed, it was the build-quality that=20
caused me to think it must have been made by a company well-versed in=20
bells and bellframes. But Taylors? Surely not! I asked Chris Pickford=20
if he knew whether Taylors made an all-steel frame and he said he=20
wasn't aware of anything of this type from Taylors. But he said he=20
was soon to be checking Taylors' records on another subject and would=20
look up Ripple. He rang me after this visit and said the bellframe=20
drawings were in the Ripple file. Taylors may have constructed it for=20
experimental purposes and there may be another one or two elsewhere.
> The existence of other early fabricated steel bellframes does beg=20
the question about whether these frames should be accorded some sort=20
of special recognition, on account of their rarity. If English=20
Heritage is currently objecting to the possible removal of a (poor=20
example of a) Taylor 'tall A' frame of 1887, because there are only=20
about 80 left, then a Taylor fabricated steel frame must be=20
priceless; similarly G&J and M&S frames of that type, particularly if=20
they are well-designed and well-constructed. If there were to be a=20
proposal to remove the Ripple frame for something else, then this=20
might go through without objections. Until recently, its manufacturer=20
wasn't known (or had been forgotten); not even the DAC Bells Advisor=20
was aware. Would EH go out of its way to investigate its pedigree?=20
There are lots of older and more-easily identified items around and=20
there is only so much time in the working week. While these frames=20
probably take on the listing of the building to which they are=20
attached, by virtue of them being fixtures, they don't have any=20
individual protection. In the meantime, they could suffer corrosion=20
and other manner of degradation, and slowly become scrap. While we=20
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=20
the possibility and/or advisability of achieving some sort of listing.
> I guess the reasons for the current trend in fabricated bellframes=20
are primarily cost (cast-iron sideframes are expensive and welding=20
now makes fabrication quick and cheap) and secondly DIY (Stephen Ivin=20
made the sideframes for St Thomas, Oxford, for instance).
> Chris Povey.

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor=20

This message was sent to you via the Bell Historians' Mailing List. To un=
subscribe from the list send an email to bellhistorians-unsubscribe at yahoogr=

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.=20

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/bell-historians/attachments/20021216/0d5755ca/attachment.html>

More information about the Bell-historians mailing list