[Bell Historians] Re: Stanton St John

[Alan Birney]

--- In bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com, "Bickerton, Roderic K 
\(SELEX\) \(UK\)" <roderic.bickerton at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> So what is wrong with that? A 9/16" tie's will provide  more than 
40 cwt
> each or 1/2" about 35cwt.
> If you have 6 that is over 200cwt preload. How much do you need to
> preload a frame supporting a 6cwt 3? Shallow joints with draw bolts
> produce a stronger frame than deep ones because much less is cut 
out of
> the load bearers.
> That is not to say I want to keep it, I just don't like rubbishing
> Mallaby unless it is deserved.
> 
> 

        Barlicks frame is rubbish Rod, I should know, its my home 
tower I ring there three times a week and got the bells going, plus 
oil the bells every 2 weeks and check them over every month. Frame 
heads and cills are split and some of the tie rod have weathered 
badly. If the installation had been worth spending more than £230 
on, I'd have put new pulleys on and hung them on balls right at the 
start a few years ago when I put a new stock on the second and the 
all the other new bits to make them ringable.

        My point was that THIS mallaby frame is not worthy of 
keeping, not Mallaby frames in general, though the qaulity does 
differ quite a bit from place to place ,and as Yorkshire is a hotbed 
of Mallaby work and I've seen a lot of thier jobs, I can safely say 
that.

Alan