[Bell Historians] Re: Historical differences between long-standing bell foundries?

Hayden Charles hcharles at OYAlV1bC-YBbERVEuS1PFxG5-o3gmNe0VboceUxmvUhLx5fE9qBK-mIYj_YSm34DI3sAY7abq5NLWBye.yahoo.invalid
Fri Apr 27 09:05:24 BST 2012

Matthew wrote on 27/04/2012 07:35:

> The amount of labor that goes into each bell is remarkable.  I wonder why more progressive casting techniques have not been employed?
> A very, very fascinating subject...

There was an article in the 'Ringing World' about the sharp second 
produced by Hayward Mills for Southwark Cathedral (bell is dated 2005, 
RW index suggests pp 589-592 but I don't have the copy to hand). Hayward 
Mills designed the bell but the casting was produced by a Sheffield 
foundry using a computer-driven sand-casting process. The design had 
extra metal incorporated to allow tuning. The article claimed that the 
bell was so close to the dimensions specified that the next attempt 
might dispense with the extra metal. Taylor's continue to use 
traditional methods since amalgamating with Hayward Mills so perhaps the 
'modern' casting approach is not cost-effective.

Hayden Charles


More information about the Bell-historians mailing list