Long Lengths

Sat Oct 29 23:09:28 BST 2005

Due to space restrictions and the number of new record length peals rung
in recent years, the diary no longer contains all current records.

For the full known list, together with previous records, details can be
found at www.cccbr.org.uk/rc.

Richard Allton
Chairman, CC Records Committee.

-----Original Message-----
From: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com] 
Sent: 29 October 2005 12:40
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Bell Historians] Digest Number 1222

There are 18 messages in this issue.

Topics in this digest:

1. Bell Frames
From: "Roderic Bickerton" <rodbic at ...>
2. Re: Shrewsbury
From: "davidhird_uk" <davidhird_uk at ...>
3. From the E-lists 28 October 2005
From: camp at ...
4. Re: Re: Bell Historians : Walberswick Church ,tower and ruins .
From: "David Cawley" <dave at ...>
5. RE: Digest Number 1221
From: "rchat" <home at ...>
6. Re: Shrewsbury
From: "Richard Offen" <richard at ...>
7. Re: Long lengths
From: "Richard Offen" <richard at ...>
8. Re: Bell Frames
From: "Richard Offen" <richard at ...>
9. Re: Shrewsbury
From: "Richard Offen" <richard at ...>
10. Re: Re: Long lengths
From: matthewhigby at ...
11. RE: Re: Long lengths
From: "Mark Regan" <markregan at ...>
12. Re: Digest Number 1221
From: "Richard Offen" <richard at ...>
13. Re: Long lengths
From: "Richard Offen" <richard at ...>
14. Re:Shrewsbury
From: "philholtsdgr" <pippolucas23 at ...>
15. Re:Shrewsbury
From: "Richard Offen" <richard at ...>
16. Re: Long lengths
From: "Mike Chester" <mike at ...>
17. Evans of Chepstow
From: "David Bryant" <davidbryant at ...>
18. Re: [nabbers] Bell Frames
From: "Roderic Bickerton" <rodbic at ...>

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 1         
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 13:14:11 +0100
From: "Roderic Bickerton" <rodbic at ...>
Subject: Bell Frames

Old King post frames have a reputation for being difficult to stabilise.
They are a development of the earlier headless or short headed frame.
They consist of an upright on a heavy foundation with the bell on top of
the upright. the upright is braced with two angled props. the structure
is a pair of right angle triangles back to back with the upright common
to both. The swinging bell produces horizontal force. Each prop in turn
takes the load as the bell produces force toward the prop. If the joints
are loose the king post moves across until the looseness is overcome and
the prop can take the load. The only way to stabilise this set up is to
make sure both props are really tight up against the king post. This can
be done by fitting steel tie bolts to pull down the props so that they
are pressing hard against the king post, and able to resist movement
without the king post having to move and take up the slack. The concept
is not changed if the king post frame has full heads and corner posts.
The only additional benefit, (apart from being able to walk round
easily) is proper stabilisation of the width of the pits, Not very
critical with 3 or 4 bells swinging the same way, but essential when the
frame has bells swinging at right angles to each other.

Looking at a full headed king post frame another way it is a box
structure and would not be able to withstand much horizontal force
without some angled bracing (referred to as angled props above).

The principle remains.
The angle braces must work if the frame is to be stable.
They only work if they are touching something.
This means they must be tight and under some load.

Look at this weeks Ringing World.
A lovely clear picture of Brasted frame (P1030).
What has been done to pull in the cross bracing (the king post props)?

Vertical top to bottom tie rods can only be of limited benefit, because
they only pull together the joints of the vertical king and corner
posts, which were never intended to take the horizontal force generated
by the bells. If excessively tight they can overload joints and damage
the timber.

Frames also generally need pulling down onto there foundation beams and
steel underpinning where fitted, if that lot is not to roll around like
a pile of logs, but that is another issue.

Its near November 5 so let us see if there are any fiery replies!

Rod Bickerton
Watford

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 2         
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 12:47:18 -0000
From: "davidhird_uk" <davidhird_uk at ...>
Subject: Re: Shrewsbury

--- In bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com, "Richard Offen" <richard at s...> 
wrote:
> There we are you see! I knew he'd come up trumps!
> 
> Thank you Alan.
> 
> If this is penal servitude, I think I'd rather like some more of
> it ...good bells to ring, friendly and enthusiastic ringers, 
> excellent food and an abundance of superb wine!
> 
> R

Nice to see you are suffering for your sins!

David

PS When are you back? I still have 1 or 2 in Shrops to grab.

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 3         
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 14:29:13 +0100
From: camp at ...
Subject: From the E-lists 28 October 2005

This week's column is now available on receipt of a blank e-mail to
roundup at ...

It has already been sent to those on the distribution list.

To join the distribution list, go to
http://bellringers.org/mailman/listinfo/roundup_bellringers.org or send
an e-mail with "subscribe" as the subject or in the body of the message
to roundup-request at ...

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 4         
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 16:42:03 +0100
From: "David Cawley" <dave at ...>
Subject: Re: Re: Bell Historians : Walberswick Church ,tower and ruins .

Re St Andrew, Walberswick. I have been there and effectively it is the
magnificent tower and four western bays of the south aisle which are in
use; the two eastern bays are sealed off and are in ruins, as is the
nave, chancel and north aisle. The church was deliberately reduced to
its present form in 1695. Other examples are Covehithe, not far away,
where the church was deliberately ruined, apart from the tower, which
still has five bells, and a small church of 1672 built in the west end
of the nave; and Corton (1) where it is the tower and west end which
were abandoned.

I have not been up the tower; but a 1947 guidebook to the church informs
us that in 1585, the Great Bell of the five then existing was sold for
£1.11s (£1.55) per 100lbs for which £26.8.9d (£26.44) was received - a
mathematical member of the list can work out how much it weighed. The
largest of four was recast in 1633. At the demolition of much of the
church in 1695, three of the four were sold along with lead and timber.
I understand that the surviving bell was recast in the 1930's.

It would be interesting to know the details of the present survivor, and
of its fittings and frame. I expect that it is too much to hope that the
original frame has survived the centuries.

DLC
----- Original Message ----- 
From: jshe726707 at ... 
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 10:37 PM
Subject: [Bell Historians] Re: Bell Historians : Walberswick Church
,tower and ruins .

I have recentely obtained a postcard of Walberswick Church ( near
Southwold ) and it shows a church without roof and ruins next to it .
The tower which appears to be flint seems intact .Does anyone know if
this tower still exists and whether it contains or contained any bells ?
As for the card it was posted in 1911 .

Thankyou,

Jim Shepard 

SPONSORED LINKS Craft hobby Hobby and craft supply Ringing  
Bell  

------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS 

a.. Visit your group "bellhistorians" on the web.

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
bellhistorians-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
------

[This message contained attachments]

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 5         
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 17:15:47 +0100
From: "rchat" <home at ...>
Subject: RE: Digest Number 1221

Andrew,

The last successful record peal at the Foundry was 12152 Little Bob
Major on 11 Jan 1975.

I believe there has been one 10000+ since then, 11127 Stedman Caters,
also in 1975, which was a record attempt called round.

Cheers
Richard

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 6         
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 16:29:41 -0000
From: "Richard Offen" <richard at ...>
Subject: Re: Shrewsbury

> Incidentally, WA was never a major penal colony or involuntary
tourist destination - exile, maybe, but not transportation
> 
> CP

Correct!

R

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 7         
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 16:33:19 -0000
From: "Richard Offen" <richard at ...>
Subject: Re: Long lengths

--- In bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com, "Andrew Higson" 
<andrew_higson at t...> wrote:
>
> I know this is not strictly kosher for a bell historians list but.
> 
> The attempt for 22,400 spliced s. major is underway at the moment
here.
> When was the last long length at the Foundry?
> 
> TIA
> 
> Andrew Higson
> Bellmaster
> Taylors, Eayre and Smith

According to my Ringing World Diary, 13,440 Rutland Surprise Major, 
20th May, 1970.

R
>

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 8         
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 16:35:51 -0000
From: "Richard Offen" <richard at ...>
Subject: Re: Bell Frames

--- In bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com, "Roderic Bickerton" 
<rodbic at n...> wrote:
>
> Old King post frames have a reputation for being difficult to
stabilise.
> They are a development of the earlier headless or short headed
frame.
> They consist of an upright on a heavy foundation with the bell on
top of the
> upright.
> the upright is braced with two angled props.
> the structure is a pair of right angle triangles back to back with
the
> upright common to both.
> The swinging bell produces horizontal force.
> Each prop in turn takes the load as the bell produces force toward
the prop.
> If the joints are loose the king post moves across until the
looseness is
> overcome and the prop can take the load.
> The only way to stabilise this set up is to make sure both props
are really
> tight up against the king post.
> This can be done by fitting steel tie bolts to pull down the props
so that
> they are pressing hard against the king post, and able to resist
movement
> without the king post having to move and take up the slack. The 
> concept is not changed if the king post frame has full heads
and corner
> posts.
> The only additional benefit, (apart from being able to walk round
easily) is
> proper stabilisation of the width of the pits, Not very critical
with 3 or 4
> bells swinging the same way, but essential when the frame has bells
swinging
> at right angles to each other.
> 
> Looking at a full headed king post frame another way it is a box
structure
> and would not be able to withstand much horizontal force without
some angled
> bracing (referred to as angled props above).
> 
> The principle remains.
> The angle braces must work if the frame is to be stable.
> They only work if they are touching something.
> This means they must be tight and under some load.
> 
> Look at this weeks Ringing World.
> A lovely clear picture of Brasted frame (P1030).
> What has been done to pull in the cross bracing (the king post
props)?
> 
> Vertical top to bottom tie rods can only be of limited benefit,
because they
> only pull together the joints of the vertical king and corner
posts, which
> were never intended to take the horizontal force generated by the
bells. If
> excessively tight they can overload joints and damage the timber.
> 
> Frames also generally need pulling down onto there foundation beams
and
> steel underpinning where fitted, if that lot is not to roll around
like a
> pile of logs, but that is another issue.
> 
> Its near November 5 so let us see if there are any fiery replies!
> 
> Rod Bickerton
> Watford
>

Shouldn't this lot be on the Bell Hangers' Chat List?

R

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 9         
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 16:37:05 -0000
From: "Richard Offen" <richard at ...>
Subject: Re: Shrewsbury

--- In bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com, "davidhird_uk" 
<davidhird_uk at y...> wrote:
>
> --- In bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com, "Richard Offen"
<richard at s...> 
> wrote:
> > There we are you see! I knew he'd come up trumps!
> > 
> > Thank you Alan.
> > 
> > If this is penal servitude, I think I'd rather like some more of
> > it ...good bells to ring, friendly and enthusiastic ringers, 
> > excellent food and an abundance of superb wine!
> > 
> > R
> 
> Nice to see you are suffering for your sins!
> 
> David
> 
> PS When are you back? I still have 1 or 2 in Shrops to grab.

My "suffering" will continue until 28th March next year! :-)

R
>

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 10        
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 12:37:16 EDT
From: matthewhigby at ...
Subject: Re: Re: Long lengths

In a message dated 28/10/2005 17:35:51 GMT Standard Time,
richard at ...  
writes:

> I know this is not strictly kosher for a bell historians list but.
>  
> The attempt for 22,400 spliced s. major is underway at the moment
here.
> When was the last long length at the Foundry?
>  
> TIA
> 
> Andrew Higson
> Bellmaster
> Taylors, Eayre and Smith

There was 9360 Minor rung on 15/4/1988. Not quite long enough I
suppose!

Matthew

Matthew Higby & Co Ltd,
Church Bell Engineers.
Jasmine Cottage,
The Street,
Chilcompton,
Bath,
BA3 4HN.

[This message contained attachments]

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 11        
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 17:37:28 +0100
From: "Mark Regan" <markregan at ...>
Subject: RE: Re: Long lengths

Are they still ringing?

-----Original Message-----
From: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Richard Offen
Sent: 28 October 2005 17:33
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Bell Historians] Re: Long lengths

--- In bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com, "Andrew Higson" 
<andrew_higson at t...> wrote:
>
> I know this is not strictly kosher for a bell historians list but.
> 
> The attempt for 22,400 spliced s. major is underway at the moment
here.
> When was the last long length at the Foundry?
> 
> TIA
> 
> Andrew Higson
> Bellmaster
> Taylors, Eayre and Smith

According to my Ringing World Diary, 13,440 Rutland Surprise Major, 
20th May, 1970.

R
>

Yahoo! Groups Links

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 12        
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 16:41:19 -0000
From: "Richard Offen" <richard at ...>
Subject: Re: Digest Number 1221

--- In bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com, "rchat" <home at a...> wrote:
>
> Andrew,
> 
> The last successful record peal at the Foundry was 12152 Little Bob 
> Major on 11 Jan 1975.
> 
That one's not in the diary ...unless I'm going blind as well as daft!

R

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 13        
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 16:42:55 -0000
From: "Richard Offen" <richard at ...>
Subject: Re: Long lengths

--- In bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com, "Mark Regan" <markregan at a...> 
wrote:
>
> Are they still ringing?
> 
Andrew will have gone home for his tea by now!

R

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 14        
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 21:53:00 -0000
From: "philholtsdgr" <pippolucas23 at ...>
Subject: Re:Shrewsbury

Richard Offen is right about the people in WA, but w.r.t. 
transportation to WA,Andrew Wilby is nearer the mark. Originally the 
state was set up as a free settlement, but colonisation was so slow, 
the settlers petitioned successfully for convict labour. 
As any South Australian will tell you, SA was the only state where 
transportation did not play a part in its history.
Phil

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 15        
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 01:40:34 -0000
From: "Richard Offen" <richard at ...>
Subject: Re:Shrewsbury

--- In bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com, "philholtsdgr" 
<pippolucas23 at a...> wrote:
>
> Richard Offen is right about the people in WA, but w.r.t.
> transportation to WA,Andrew Wilby is nearer the mark. Originally 
the 
> state was set up as a free settlement, but colonisation was so
slow, 
> the settlers petitioned successfully for convict labour.
> As any South Australian will tell you, SA was the only state where 
> transportation did not play a part in its history.
> Phil
>

That's all as may be, but as we well know on this list, history is 
dependent upon those who interpret it!

I still maintain that miscalling a quarter peal of Grandsire Doubles 
was insufficient reason for Glover to petition the authorities for my 
immediate transportation to the colonies!

Now, excuse me, I must be off to the cellar to find another bottle of 
that very nice Margaret River red :-)

R

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 16        
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 07:59:07 -0000
From: "Mike Chester" <mike at ...>
Subject: Re: Long lengths

--- In bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com, "Mark Regan" <markregan at a...> 
wrote:
>
> Are they still ringing?
> 

Peal scored - 100 Spliced S Major atw

See http://www.campanophile.co.uk/show.html?Code=31837

Mike

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 17        
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 09:25:52 +0100
From: "David Bryant" <davidbryant at ...>
Subject: Evans of Chepstow

Has anyone ever put together a list of bells by the Evans family of
Chepstow? What is their largest surviving bell? The 10th at Exeter
Cathedral (33 cwt)?

David

[This message contained attachments]

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 18        
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 10:50:26 +0100
From: "Roderic Bickerton" <rodbic at ...>
Subject: Re: [nabbers] Bell Frames

I submitted this in response to the RW article.

I posted it in the hope that some of the engineers out there would read
it
and come down on me if I have missed anything.

I had intended it to be the basis for an RW letter questioning the work
at
Brasted, but wanted to "try it out" in a more restricted forum.
RW 28 October front and pages 1030, 1031.
>From the picture and content It would appear that the tie rods fitted to
the
Brasted frame are entirely inappropriate. If so they will not help to
stabilise it much, and could easily severely overload it. the 1558 frame
was
intended to support about 1 .25 T of bells generating of the order of
2.5 T
peak down thrust and 1 T horizontal.
A 3/4 tie rod tensioned to its normal working load would generate about
3T
of tension.
40 have been fitted, which would be capable of together applying 120T of
pressure to the frame. Sure that would stop the joints moving but a bit
much
for timber near 500 years old and only intended for 2.5T.
The King and Queen post joints were never intended to stop horizontal
movement, that was the job of the angled braces between the king posts
and
the lower sills (Please see my original post).
A worst case would be that this pre load together environmental effects,
will slowly crush and destroy the joints.
Timber in a tower is subject to large changes of humidity and
temperature.
this causes timber to expand and contract. If it is unable to expand and
subject to excessive preload the timber will permanently crush at its
weakest point. Subsequent drying out would then shrink it. It would not
take
many years of tightening in dry weather to do far more damage than has
occurred in the last 500.

>From: Brett masters

>I can't work out why the post was made, it has no back ground as to why
it
was posted I.E a >response to another post nor does it explain why it
was
sent. Was it in relation to this week >article in the comic???

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

------------------------------------------------------------------------