[Bell Historians] Ludlow

[Andrew Bull]

I have rung here, both before and after the 1988 rehanging. The tower is
central, and 135 feet high. There is a high lantern stage which takes up the
majority of the tower, leaving the very top section for the bells and
ringers.

 

There is considerable tower sway, and the bells were certainly a handful
before the 1988 rehanging. I rang the tenor here in 1986 to a peal attempt
of Yorkshire, which was soon abandoned in favour of a quarter peal attempt
for Bob Major. It was noticeable that a number of the bells dropped, for
example the fourth every time it passed the tenor. For the quarter attempt,
the conductor employed a composition that used fifths/fourths; he missed a
bob at fourths, leaving the tenors parted. This resulted in the tenor
suddenly becoming harder work to ring! At this time, the bells were hung in
the 1890 Taylor composite frame, with wooden headstocks and plain bearings.

 

When the bells were rehung in 1988, the existing frame was retained, but the
old tenor was found to be a poor and porous casting, and was recast over two
hundredweight heavier. The wooden headstocks were replaced with box-section
cast iron ones with ball-bearings. The fact of the bells being more
tucked-up on the iron headstocks seemed to reduce the tower movement a
little, and the bells seemed easier to ring, though still a handful.

 

Whilst I would regret the scrapping of a fine heavy Taylor bell, the simple
fact of the matter is that the bells were hung far too high in the tower,
especially given the weight, but it would have been impossible to hang them
any lower without gutting the inside of the tower, doing away with the
lantern arrangement and building new floors in the tower. Whilst there is a
local band and some enthusiasm in the area, the bells as they existed up to
last month would certainly have been a challenge for any band, and simply
too heavy to be so high in such a tall central tower.

 

I have no doubt that the decision to re-model the bells into a lighter ten
is absolutely the right one, which should not only reduce the tower sway
considerably, but also give the local band a much lighter diatonic six to
ring. I'm impressed that the locals have been able to find the money to fund
the work and implement it so quickly.

 

Incidentally, there used to be a superb website for Ludlow bells, but it
seems have disappeared.

 

Andrew Bull

 

  _____  

From: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com [mailto:bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of David Bryant
Sent: 23 December 2008 00:03
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Bell Historians] Ludlow

 

"I do not know the bells" ...there you have the answer.

Too big and too high in a fairly wobbly central tower."

And a lantern tower, which probably means there is no room to hang the bells
any lower (I've not been up there, but from photos of the church this
appears to be the case).

If I remember rightly (and I think I do) there was a plan a few years back
to augment the existing eight to 12 plus a sharp 2nd, using the two
Kidderminster bells as the trebles of 12, but this idea was abandoned
because the tower wasn't considered to be strong enough, hence the
subsequent remodelling to a lighter ten. 

It makes sense once you know the circumstances!



           
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/bell-historians/attachments/20081228/5b2e3deb/attachment.html>