[Bell Historians] Old frame at great st mary's cambridge

Fri Feb 2 16:36:05 GMT 2024

Could it also have been because the treble was chimed as  a service 
bell, so wouldn't want to fit a silencer?

Phil Gay

------ Original Message ------
From: "Gareth Davies via Bell-historians" 
<bell-historians at lists.ringingworld.co.uk>
To: "Bell Historians" <bell-historians at lists.ringingworld.co.uk>
Cc: "Gareth Davies" <charollais at gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, 29 Jan, 24 At 13:38
Subject: Re: [Bell Historians] Old frame at great st mary's cambridge
Perfectly possible. I haven’t come across anything that explains the 
decision. Boughey’s original request to the church specifically asked if 
the university ringers could have it installed on 'on the eight highest 
bells (which are the lightest & the least used)’. There must have been 
some practical reason for later avoiding the treble.
Gareth
On 29 Jan 2024, at 12:44, Richard Smith <richard at ex-parrot.com> wrote:

Thanks, both, for your clarifications on which bells the Seage apparatus 
used.  Happy to accept it was definitely 2 to 9.  I wonder whether the 
decision to put it on these eight bells, rather than the front eight, 
was related to the fact that the treble seems to have been rather 
cramped in the corner by the clock weight shaft and raise back bell 
platform?
RAS

David Bagley wrote:
In my research into the history of ringing simulators, I have found a 
reference to the Seage apparatus at GSM in the first volume of Bell 
news, which clearly states that "Mr Seage of Exeter has lately finished 
putting up his Dumb Practice Apparatus... The apparatus has been fixed 
to the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth of 
the ring of twelve. The ninth weighs about 16cwt."
In the issue of Bell News of Jan 30th 1897, there is a report of a peal 
being rung on the dumb apparatus on Wednesday 27th January, giving the 
tenor as 17cwt. (That's a pretty fast turn around from the peal being 
rung to it being printed!)
David

-----Original Message-----
From: Bell-historians <bell-historians-bounces at lists.ringingworld.co.uk> 
On Behalf Of Gareth Davies via Bell-historians
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2024 11:53 AM
To: Bell Historians <bell-historians at lists.ringingworld.co.uk>
Cc: Gareth Davies <charollais at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Bell Historians] Old frame at great st mary's cambridge
Just a minor clarification on RAS’s email. There is little doubt that 
the Seage’s apparatus was fixed to bells 2-9. Correspondence between 
Taylor’s and the church in 1911 confirms that they were going to re-fix 
it to those bells after re-hanging work.
Gareth

On 27 Jan 2024, at 22:57, c.j.pickford--- via Bell-historians 
<bell-historians at lists.ringingworld.co.uk> wrote:
Sorry you hadn't seen it before. I dug out the details for Gareth when 
he was digging in Taylors' archives for stuff on GSM. I imagine it was 
the ten-bell frame altered - which would explain the siting of the 
treble, although the others must have been shunted around a bit too to 
get an extra pit in.
Chris Pickford
Westray, Bowling Green Lane, Knighton, Powys, LD7 1DS
Tel: 07811-453525
e-mail: pickford5040 at gmail.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Bell-historians
<bell-historians-bounces at lists.ringingworld.co.uk> On Behalf Of
Richard Smith
Sent: 27 January 2024 22:46
To: Bell Historians Mailing List
<bell-historians at lists.ringingworld.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [Bell Historians] Old frame at great st mary's cambridge

Thanks for posting this, Chris, as I hadn't seen the details of the old 
frame layout either.
It's consistent with what I knew.  I'm told by the late Chris Johnson, 
who rang regularly on them regularly while they were still 
anticlockwise, that the ringing room used to have a raised platform on 
the north side from which the back three bells were rung.  You can still 
see signs of where this must have been if you lift the carpet.
The bells from the old Seage apparatus were mounted high on the north 
wall behind the tenors.  It was only fitted on eight bells – accounts 
vary whether this was 2-9 or 1-8 – but was not in use by the early '50s.
Chris also said that the northwest corner around the treble was rather 
cramped, with the tenor and treble ropes falling quite close together. 
This frame diagram seems to bear that out, and there must have been a 
fair amount of rope draw around that corner.  It probably also didn't 
help that the clock weight shaft was in that corner, though I don't know 
whether it went through the bell frame or stopped below that level.  The 
bell chamber floor was entirely replaced during the work in the 1950s, 
so there's no evidence left there.
Also interesting to see that the sanctus bell – we now call it the 
priest's bell – was in the middle of the north wall, and I wonder 
whether it was in use at all at this time.  So far as I can see, the 
only rope path down to the church is in the southeast corner of the 
ringing room.  But perhaps it wasn't used during the early twentieth 
century.
After the rehang in the '50s, it was hung on a lever for chiming in the 
middle of the east side of the bell chamber, again between 10 and 11. 
It's now mounted above the clock bells in the southeast corner.  I think 
I've seen it used once in the 28 years I've been ringing at GSM.  A 
shame, really, as it's not a bad little bell; I suspect the work of 
Richard Holdfield or possibly the first Tobias Norris.
RAS

c.j.pickford--- via Bell-historians wrote:

Yes, they were anti-clockwise. Here is Paul Taylor’s sketch plan of
the old frame layout, drawn in 1949

Chris Pickford

From: Bell-historians
<bell-historians-bounces at lists.ringingworld.co.uk> On Behalf Of
oliver Lee via Bell-historians
Sent: 27 January 2024 22:11
To: Bell-historians at lists.ringingworld.co.uk
Cc: oliver Lee <oliverbellringer at outlook.com>
Subject: [Bell Historians] Old frame at great st mary’s cambridge

According to many old sources there is some suggestion that the pre
1952 frame orginally anti-clockwise and this is also true of the old
ten at Maidstone ( which where of course recast five years later in
1957), I have often wondered what their layouts where and weather
there are any  plans of them prior to removal.
I’d be interested to know more
Many thanks
Oliver lees

_______________________________________________
Bell-historians mailing list
Bell-historians at lists.ringingworld.co.uk
https://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/listinfo/bell-historians 
<https://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/listinfo/bell-historians>

_______________________________________________
Bell-historians mailing list
Bell-historians at lists.ringingworld.co.uk
https://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/listinfo/bell-historians 
<https://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/listinfo/bell-historians>
_______________________________________________
Bell-historians mailing list
Bell-historians at lists.ringingworld.co.uk
https://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/listinfo/bell-historians 
<https://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/listinfo/bell-historians>
_______________________________________________
Bell-historians mailing list
Bell-historians at lists.ringingworld.co.uk
https://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/listinfo/bell-historians 
<https://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/listinfo/bell-historians>

_______________________________________________
Bell-historians mailing list
Bell-historians at lists.ringingworld.co.uk
https://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/listinfo/bell-historians 
<https://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/listinfo/bell-historians>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/bell-historians/attachments/20240202/31fcb03d/attachment.htm>