[r-t] Shipway Minor

Alexander Holroyd holroyd at math.ubc.ca
Tue Jun 17 02:21:13 UTC 2014

In case anyone cares, the first extent of Shipway Minor seems to be by 
Anthony Smith, RW 1986/68.  This uses bobs plus 56-places in the 

The first one to be rung was by Jonathan Deane, RW 1993/683.  This has 
calls 16 and 3456 at the eight end, and Johathan Deane commented "it 
appears that calls that disrupt the front work have to be used".  (He also 
describes it as "perhaps the most difficult six-bell method around", which 
seems like a bit of a stretch to me.)

On Wed, 11 Jun 2014, Alexander Holroyd wrote:

> In the unlikely event that anyone is not deriving sufficent excitement from 
> the current lively discussion on CC decisions, here is a little diversion.
> Shipway is a natural even-bell variant of Stedman, consisting of alternate 
> quick and slow "eights", i.e. forward and reverse hunting on the front 4 with 
> dodging behind.  3rds is made at the eight end, resulting in a principle on 
> every even stage.
> Despite the elegance and simplicity of the method, it seems to be rather 
> awkward to get an extent of the minor stage.  This may partly explain why 
> minor was apparently not named until 1993 (with a pretty challenging extent 
> by Jonathan Deane, I believe), while major was pealed in 1840.
> In particular, there seems to be a belief that it is impossible to get an 
> extent without "disrupting the front work".  If I remember correctly, exactly 
> this assertion was made in the RW when it was named in 1993. (Perhaps someone 
> with easy access to back issues could check this).
> However, this belief turns out to be wrong!  I have recently found an extent 
> that does not disrupt the front work -- see below.  It uses 3 different types 
> of calls, but they are the nicest 3 one could hope for: Stedman Triples type 
> bobs and singles, and a Stedman Doubles type single in the middle of an eight 
> (henceforth called an extreme).  Moreover, the density of calls is not at all 
> unreasonable (for a "problem method").
> The extent has some quite strange properties.  The two extremes in the part 
> at first look like a Q-set, since they come in two "complementary" eights, 
> with the hunting order on the front and the bells in 56 reversed. However, 
> they aren't.  We leave an eight with an extreme, but rejoin it in the same 
> place at an eight-end (and vice versa).  Not really sure why this works.
> I'd be interested to see other extents.  In particular, the plain course 
> consists of 12 out of 15 eights of the group generated by the place notations 
> -,3,4.  Thus 6 true courses are very easily produced, but that leaves out 
> 6x3=18 eights to be added somehow.  Can this be done in any reasonable way?
> Ander
> http://www.math.ubc.ca/~holroyd/comps/shi6.txt
> 720 Shipway Minor
> Alexander E Holroyd
> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0  123456
> ---------------------------
>  -       s -X  -    234156
>  -   s s -     s -  123546
> -    X- s       -    231645
> ---------------------------
> 3 part
> - = 34 at eight-end
> s = 3456 at eight-end
> X = 56 places in middle of (slow) eight
> Start with rounds as the 5th row of a quick eight

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list