[Bell Historians] Treble hangings

[Richard Offen]

--- In bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com, "Judith & Andrew Higson" 
<jahigson at n...> wrote:
> RO:
> 
> Presumably to slow them down a bit.
> 
> Is this why, in quite a number of Taylor's larger rings, it is hard
> work to strike the little bells over the large ones (and for the
> tenors to have to pull off in front of the trebles in order to 
strike
> over them). Compared to Leighton Buzzard, for instance, the 
trebles
> at Canterbury are a doddle to ring and strike properly (I've rung
> peals on the treble at both)!
> 
> Oops! I've probably offended lots of Taylor fans again!!!
> 
> R
> 
> Not me.
> 
> It might be interesting to compare hangings, wheels sizes, etc. if 
you have
> them for Canterbury, I'll supply LB, Evesham etc.
> 
> Andrew

Alas, I've just donated all of my papers on the restoration of 
Canterbury Cathedral bells to the Cathedral Company's archive (I was 
running out of space and felt it more appropriate for them to be in 
Canterbury than Shropshire), but Dickon might have them. If not, 
I'll contact Hazel Basford and get her to search them out. It 
would certainly be interesting to do the comparison.

I was ringing the treble in 12 at St Chad's Shrewsbury again this 
evening and the front end are far easier to strike there than many of 
your later twelves. The tenor, which I've turned in on many 
occasions is certainly not sluggish in the way described by DB. 
What happened in the hanging department after Shrewsbury?

On the matter of sound, I agree with David Beecham, it all depends on 
where you hear a ring. St Chad's are not the easiest to hear 
inside, although we have improved them considerably in recent years, 
but walk down to the River Severn, through the park opposite the 
Church, and they are just sublime - the tingle factor is amazing!

R