[Bell Historians] Writtle
bdk at b...
Mon Jan 31 22:19:23 GMT 2005
>.... I wonder why they chose this option for a light eight, rather than having a flat 4th >and extra treble. The advantage of the latter option would be that it would not give >a 12-bell circle, whereas having the treble and sharp 2nd of 12 does. I assume
>that at Grantham this was done because having a flat 4th would probably have
>involved even more substantial frame alterations than were already
I can't speak for Writtle, but I'm both an ex-Sunday service ringer at Grantham and an employee of the bellhangers involved in the recent Grantham augmentation (adding a treble and sharp second to the existing 32 cwt ten, for anyone who doesn't know). I did suggest to the Grantham tower captain that a flat 4th and extra treble would provide a better transition for learners between the front six and all ten, which had been cited as the reason for the augmentation, however my suggestion wasn't well received. I suspect that the real reason for the augmentation was that the ageing band decided that they would rather not have to haul the back bells around at all, and I think that if they went for a complete new ten now, they would choose one much smaller than that which was installed in 1946/7. Not that the local band would probably admit that, as they are justifiably proud of their bells.
Whatever you Wanadoo:
This email has been checked for most known viruses - find out more at: http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/help/id/7098.htm
More information about the Bell-historians