Ringing Forums

a bell project led by an enthusiastic person or small team, will be able to raise a lot of money for a bell project — Alison Hodge

Been there, done that, I have no interest in being responsible for another tower which I wouldn't ring at anyway. I'm not even CofE so I think I've more than done my bit already, fundraising and project managing the rehang at the tower that's still going. If the PCCs of the other towers want to take on getting the bells going I'm happy to advise and help, but that's it.

"Get out and about to get on" is just as true here, but there are fewer opportunities and there's more travelling involved. That's never going to be a realistic option for everyone anyway, for a number of reasons, I'm the only "itinerant" at our tower. But there are other measures of progress besides "Can they ring Surprise Major?", we've gone from nobody being in the local Association to all of us, we've started going to branch practices and arranging our own tower outings and so on. Enthusiasm and progress (in relative terms!) are at an all-time high.

None of our recent recruits have come from the congregation, indeed most aren't churchgoers. But we live in a fairly small community and most people know who we are - not sure if that's good or bad :wink: If we want to get on we have to make it happen within the band as there isn't really a pool of experienced and willing ringers in the area we can call on, most of the towers around are either inactive, or in an even worse position than we are. That's been both a challenge and an opportunity, if we want to do stuff, we as a band have to work together to make it happen rather than relying on people parachuting in. But on the upside, we all "own" the process and the decisions together, and I think that may be more sustainable long term.

thanks for the info. Our band are all regular attendees so I think we could cope fewer than 2x the number of bells. We too have asked people to wait until we had the ability to teach them, the thinking is that it's better to give people a good experience and get them ringing as quickly as possible with the band, rather than having more beginners making slower progress.

It's been great seeing a long-standing CC band start learning methods, the turning point was when we got through a Minimus method in one practice. The boost that gave to people's confidence was huge - it was never the case that they didn't want to ring methods, they just didn't think they could. People are doing homework, the vocabulary is changing from bell numbers to places etc - it's all good. I think if you don't have an established method band to slot people into, small steps (in the same way we teach handling) are the key.

It is good question though, how do you restart ringing at silent towers, when there's no ready-made band? I suspect that's going to become an increasingly common scenario over the next few years. I know it has been done successfully in some places but it must have been a slow, hard process - and I wonder how far they got? My suspicion is perhaps as far as CCs and PH, but without existing method ringers providing support, method ringing seems like an almost insurmountable challenge. My tower has 3 of us who can ring methods, and even then it's a challenge, albeit one that we are meeting.

As I said, we don't have enough ringers, which is why we are training some. The question is how many are "enough"?

I ran the HLF bid and project management for the rehang of the active one in 2018 and I'm still working on it. I'm in no hurry to repeat the experience, although I'd be happy to help if there was someone who wanted to take on the others (there isn't).

But it's unlikely either of them will ever ring again. At one, the frame is derelict and needs a full rehang, the church had a large bequest recently but there was no interest in doing anything with the bells. The other is a 14cwt 8 shoved in a ridiculously small tower with access via a trapdoor. One person has to ring in a niche in the wall, another has to stand on the closed trap, they are all drawn and tricky to handle. The frame is on 2 tiers, you have to stand on the headstocks of the lower one to work on the top and there's a huge derelict clock directly below. Everything that moves needs attention. The congregation are on the evangelical side with little interest in the bells, there's been a PCC civil war of the sort that the CofE is so good at that resulted in the vicar leaving, and when it was ringing there were noise complaints which resulted in it being rung just once a fortnight at a weird time in the middle of Sunday afternoon.

the little upload icon, second from the right.

Ours louvres are around 1.2m wide by 2.7m high, blocked with 6 boards per louvre, with the boards being the maximum size that would fit up the tower staircase. The outside of the boards and all the edges are coated in bitumen paint and the boards are attached directly to the walls with L brackets and concrete bolts, so the inside and outside surfaces are flush. There's very little space between the frame and the louvres, so they've been a right pain to fit.

A more engineered solution would be to install 'sound flaps' in the floor between the ringers and the bells A 12 inch square panel which can be opened permanently (and suitably protected from accidental trips and fals is one possibility. The other would be to open the flaps/traps when reqwuired, with a pull cord from the ringing room. — Peter Sotheran

Our top trap already has holes drilled in it to enable to be lifted up, and we have it rigged so it can be propped open,. The plan was to put adjustable air vents in the bottom trap to increase the sound in a controlled way. First I propped up the bottom trap with small blocks around the edges, checked the sound level was then OK and figured out the open surface area, the plan being to get vents with the same. As it turned out, blocking up the louvres seems to have done the job so the vents won't be necessary - moral of the story, try something temporary first!

After installation someone suggested adding foam plastic draft excluder round each shutter, as icing on the cake. I remember when we fitted it, as I closed the final shutter with it on we noticed the traffic noise disappear, which we hadn't noticed before. So coling the final mm or so made an audible difference. — John Harrison

The author of the CCCBR sound control guidance visited us (our rebuilt weigh shaft is one of his examples), he made it very clear that any sound control needs to be completely sealed, even a small gap will let sound through. The new weight shaft is therefore sealed against the wall with silicone. I'm currently boarding up our lower louvres and the same applies - the boards are ~40mm thick, ply-rubber-ply, and there are two strips of neoprene draught excluder between each board on the inside and outside edges, and butyl sealant all the way around between the boards and the stonework. Basically, if sound control isn't airtight, it won't be effective,

There's some good info in the CCCBR sound control guides, although it's mainly about making things quieter rather than louder - but it might help identify what sort of factors you should consider.

• https://cccbr.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/sound-control-notes.pdf
• https://cccbr.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Mike-Banks-Sound-Control-slides_2.pdf

During our rehang in 2018 the clock room floor / ringing room ceiling was replaced, with the new one being up to modern standards and therefore significantly deeper. That affected the sound levels on the ringing gallery. One thing I tried was lining the inside of the rope holes through the ringing gallery ceiling with thick walled 50mm plastic tube, so the sound didn't get "lost" in the floor / ceiling void. That helped some, but sound levels were still a bit too low.

I'm currently blocking up the lower louvres, we have 2 sets of 4 and the bells are directly behind the lower ones, which are substantial - around 4' x 8'. As a result it's very loud immediately outside, and whichever bell is closes to a louvre "shouts" through it, so we want to push the sound up the steeple and out of the upper louvres. We are using a ply-rubber-ply sandwich, approximately 40mm thick. So far I've done 3 of the 4 louvres, not only has that helped the situation outside, it's also markedly improved the situation on the ringing gallery, particularly for the front bells.

That's perhaps not an option for you, but I have heard about people putting a hard surface above bells to act as a sound reflector, which might help. However, whatever you do there will likely have an effect outside the tower as well.

If you can, I'd start by having someone measure the sound levels in the various parts of the tower, and work from there. For example, if it's too quiet in the clock room, nothing you do between there and the ringing room will have much effect. Good luck!

I am not sure what progress there has been since https://eacr.org.uk/about/bequests.html — Roger Booth

There's an interesting document linked to from the very bottom of the page that seems pretty recent, and is an interesting read.

We also learnt that successful ringing centres were about people. Once a key leader ceased ringing there, they became no different to any ordinary tower. — Roger Booth

What sort of level did the ringing centres teach up to? It's possible to teach handling and probably as far as Plain Bob Minor on a "one teacher, one tower" basis, but I suspect to get beyond that needs a different approach, and different support. But "key leader" sounds like they were also based around that model?

There's an Amateur Steeplekeeper group on Facebook, you could try asking there. There are some knowledgeable people in there who give sound advice, but also a number who have lots of opinions, but little of is is correct / useful. I think that's a problem you'll have wherever the information comes from.

When I went on the Derbyshire Association Steeplekeeper's Training day a few years ago I wouldn't say the gender ratio was equal, but there were a fair number of ladies there. And at my own tower, one of the primary volunteers in our 2018 rehang was a lady who wasn't a ringer but who had a keen interest in the practicalities, along with bags of ability. We of course told her that if she wanted to keep maintaining "her bells" she would have to learn to ring them, which she duly did. There can't be many people, of either gender, who have helped rehang a ring before they could actually ring them :grin:

I've come across many grass roots ringers who are on the verge of giving up because the support that they receive is so backward. Only about 50% of ringers have ever got as far as ringing a quarter peal. Only about 12,000 ringers rang one or more quarter peals last year (Coronation year) out of an estimated 30,000 ringers. — Roger Booth

As a grass roots ringer at a tower that for longer than living memory was just CCs and shaky PH + cover, I can confirm all the points in your post. Also, whilst QPs are recorded and therefore one of the few observable yardsticks we have, there's still a big gap to be filled between CCs and QPs - people may not want to ring QPs but still aspire just to be able to ring plain courses of simple methods at practices and services - and of course, once some of them have broken through that barrier, they will go on to ring QPs. That's exactly what is happening at my home tower.

The grass roots ringers that you mention though include, I fear, many who only ring at their own tower and who see no point in joining the association. Your quarter peal courses sound fantastic, but are irrelevant to someone who rings plain hunt by the bell numbers and regards methods as beyond them. — J Martin Rushton

My home tower was exactly that when I started - even PH was a stretch and nobody was in the association. Now everybody is in the association and everybody is working on ringing methods, albeit simple ones. That includes people who have been ringing CCs/PH for many decades. Why did that happen? Well, some of us "went abroad" and brought back ideas from courses, training days and more advanced towers. The breakthrough was when the band managed to ring an easy Minimus method in just a single practice. "Oh wow, so we can ring methods!" was the vibe. After that, people would come to practices with lines printed out and homework done, and there's been continued progress by the whole band since then.

I think it's worth stressing that these were not new ringers who had hit a brick wall, they were long-term ringers who "regarded methods as beyond them". There's a significant number of such ringers who enjoy ringing but feel that they've reached their limits, but with the appropriate support could break out of their rut and start progressing again. The great advantage of helping that group is they are already committed to ringing - arguably even more so than people who make rapid progress!

The point I am making is that in this day and age, if we could only communicate better with this group of new ringers, and make them aware of what is possible outside their own tower, we could have a far more vibrant ringing community. However I fear that if we sit back and do not adapt because of the tired old cliche that these people are not interested, these keen people are either likely to give up and do something else, or be ground down by the system and just be another ringer that only, at best, rings shaky plain hunt by numbers in their own tower. In doing so, we will be losing a lot of the more able recruits and potentially good method ringers. — Roger Booth

I agree, but I think the applicability is broader than just new ringers.

Take a look at https://www.hibberts.co.uk/recording-bells-for-analysis/

As intangible cultural heritage can only be considered as such when it is recognised by the communities, groups or individuals that create, maintain and share it, it will be these groups and people who will be able to nominate the UK’s cherished traditions to be formally recognised.

And:

The process for adding items to the Inventory will be to call for items to be submitted by communities, groups or individuals. We anticipate requiring information about the item, its location(s), categories, and practitioners. Then, subject to a light-touch approvals process, the new entries will be announced on a regular basis – probably quarterly. We will look to engage and provide support for those who wish to submit items.

So if it is "light touch" and doesn't take a huge effort to get registered, I can't see why not. But as you say, it's early days yet.

Despite the way it is reported in the press, the current consultation is to establish the criteria for inclusion rather than establishing an actual list. The survey is now open at https://dcms.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9MsgupKs6P9kxw2

See also https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/2003-unesco-convention-for-the-safeguarding-of-the-intangible-cultural-heritage/consultation-on-the-2003-unesco-convention-for-safeguarding-of-the-intangible-cultural-heritage

it would raise visibility and makes things such as publicity, and funding slightly easier. I think any effect on recruitment would be indirect.

I absolutely agree it's a marathon and not a sprint, particularly when it comes to ongoing learning. Relatively speaking it's quick and easy to get someone ringing rounds and CCs, progressing to method ringing is obviously much harder and takes much longer, and some towers can struggle to provide appropriate support. And of course not everyone who starts ringing will want to progress that far anyway. ART is great at the early stages, but unless you are at a strong tower, progress can often stall after around L3. I'm not sure how you address that, but I do think it needs addressing.

I think the point about capacity is an important one to consider. I know of one tower that ended up with 10 - 15 new learners as a result of RftK, which doesn't seem remotely sustainable. We've limited our learners to a maximum of two per training session as we only have one teacher, even if that has meant asking people to wait (which they have). The reasoning is that it's better to try to get a smaller number of people ringing with the band a s quickly as possible rather than giving more people a poorer experience. Plus a steady supply of new ringers is easier for the rest of the band to integrate.

Perhaps it means getting some sort of process in place for managing requests that can currently come in from multiple different sources, e.g.

* https://cccbr.org.uk/bellringing/learn/
* https://bellringing.org
* http://www.ringingteachers.org/

As well as the many related association pages, e.g.

* https://birminghambells.com/
* https://derbyda.org.uk/about/education/training-request-individual/

but that's just a guess...