Ringing Forums

Totally off the wall question: if you have a surplus of ringers could you form two bands and get the bells going in on of the other towers in the town?

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.

OK, I'll put the question back on the wall. Thanks for the reply.

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.

The rule of thumb I two ringers per bell. Obviously that will vary a bit with the nature of the band - whether they all put ringing first or whether they have busy lives with lots of other commitments - but in my experience it seems about right.
I wouldn't turn recruits away outright, but on a few occasions when our teaching was at capacity we asked people to go on a waiting list until those ahead of them had progressed.

starting from scratch is obviously hard but you have a clean slate, so although it takes a lot of effort you can set a positive culture. In the long run that might prove more successful than feeding recruits into a moribund tower with a negative culture.
The CC published a book on teaching a new band from scratch. I don't know where it's still in print but you may be able to find one somewhere if not.

I know three towers near me where there had been no ringing and then a band was set up (after new bells / major work on the bells) and it is definitely hard work, usually relying on one or two key people who are willing to teach and develop the new band AND rope in extra support from other towers near by. All three are still active 8-10 years later but all could ideally do with a few more ringers to ensure weekly service ringing and practices and the chance to keep developing ringing ability. They are lucky in that it’s London so if your home tower can’t help you progress it’s reasonably easy to join a second practice each week or join district practices for progression.

One tower near me is currently attempting to re-build a band, currently they have three ringers who call it their home tower, two of whom regularly ring elsewhere to get more opportunities. A local experienced ringer took on the challenge and arranged teaching sessions for new learners and calls for help to support practices once or twice a month. The congregation were invited to come and see what bellringing is about and this resulted in three learners of which one really stuck at it. This will be repeated again, nearly a year later, to see if there are more to recruit from within the congregation. Again it has relied heavily on one organiser and the helpers they are able to pull together from other towers nearby and it is still a good way from being a sustainable and independent band.

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.

"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.

John's 2 ringers per bell is a helpful guide, but perhaps also think about the circumstances of the individuals. Are some about to go to university and perhaps not return? Or, dare I say it, of an age where they may not continue for more than a few years?

Also, what are their specific interests - is there succession for the person who knows and about maintenance, or the kind people who don't ring so much but organise all the outings, cleaning, cake making, quarter peals, wedding ringing? Are there newcomers assisting and hence learning with all these activities as well as the ringing itself?

If, as you say, other towers in the town are really out of the question for resurrecting ringing, then what about helping neighbouring towns / villages? It is very likely that another tower within a few miles would welcome the assistance from some ready made ringers. Cooperation is what will be essential if ringing is to build up again.

And it could be asked why a tower is really 'beyond repair'? Sometimes, a bell project led by an enthusiastic person or small team, will be able to raise a lot of money for a bell project and also help the church rejuvenate. It may be that the roof repairs, heating bills etc are too daunting for the current PCC and wardens, but a few new supporters taking new approaches with different interests become the strength to resolve a set of bigger issues!

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.

Would you say it's almost impossible to teach a new band from scratch and expect them to be a method ringing band without considerable ongoing support? I think so, especially given that teaching entire bands from scratch tends to be older learners, who tend to take more effort to get into method ringing. I am not meaning that in a disparaging way - it's just the way it is. But on the other hand I don't think that matters because method ringing doesn't have to be the target. I have often said that good call change ringing should be the target of any inexperienced band, and getting there can be perfectly fulfilling.

The only time I have been involved in teaching a new band from scratch, the difficulty we had was getting out of being in charge - finding a way to either find a new tower captain or stick with it long enough for one to emerge. I remember sitting in the pub one evening with Tony Daw after a practice of a band we were teaching between us and him saying "what's our exit plan from this?" In case you get the impression that everything in Birmingham is marvellous, ultimately we did not succeed. We did persuade someone else to be in charge, but it only lasted a couple more years and the band gradually dissolved.

Would you say it's almost impossible to teach a new band from scratch and expect them to be a method ringing band without considerable ongoing support? — Simon Linford

There are bands who are well-established but who have "topped out" at CCs & PH, do you think the same applies there as well? There are differences from your scenario as there's already someone in charge, and the band is stable. Perhaps they might be a better bet for "Sending the elevator back down", provided of course that there's a strong desire in the band to move things on in the first place.

That's more or less the situation of my home tower and we are working towards being a method band, except we are doing it without external help. Three of us can ring simple methods and the rest of the band are "up for it". Expectations of method ringing are being set from the start with any beginners. It's early days and wouldn't describe us as a "method band" yet, but we are making progress. I'm interested in any thoughts about on what sorts of pitfalls we might meet, and things that might help us :smile:

You will find that you will always need more :-) look at the make up of your band; how many over 65? How many young married and working with kids? the former will not always be with you - the latter may have to move for work at any moment
2 per bell seems reasonable and you may need more than one practice night for a while.
Yes it would be good were you to feel able to help the other two twoers back into life AND
in a worst case you have 8 so if necessry can drop back to ring just six of them (back or front?)

teaching entire bands from scratch tends to be older learners, who tend to take more effort to get into method ringing — Simon Linford

I think there's probably as much variation with in age groups than there is between them - . Perhaps what's more important than age is attitude and approach? A lot of older learners may be taking up ringing because they perceive it as a nice gentle, traditional hobby to take up in retirement, and to socialise with like-minded people. Nothing wrong with that, and indeed that's what many towers provide. But if you want to be a method ringer, you have to be determined and focussed - perhaps even bordering on the obsessive, irrespective of age.

Maybe rather than bucketing people by age, we need to be more nuanced and provide enhanced support for those who have the potential and willingness to become method ringers? Although quite how you'd do that is a good question. Another issue is that as far as I know there's no ringing community wide way of "fast tracking" such people, it tends to be down to geographical luck and word of mouth. Potential method ringers (of all ages) are almost certainly falling through the cracks at the moment. Do we need an "ART++"?

Would you say it's almost impossible to teach a new band from scratch and expect them to be a method ringing band without considerable ongoing support? — Simon Linford

In the book (worth reading, download from CC shop) Wilf Moreton said he had started several bands from scratch.
I've never done it as an outside, but in my teens, three of us who had recently learned effectively built a band from scratch around u with minimal external help, and in a few years we were the leading QP tower in the county. But that was the 60s when more things were possible. To start with a couple of teenagers wouldn't be allowed to run a tower and teach lots of youngsters now.

the difficulty we had was getting out of being in charge — Simon Linford

More recently I helped a very weak band get on its feet, and I made it clear that my aim was to get them to the point they didn't need me. Even so it was 3½ years before I actually made my exit. I didn't do any handling teaching, so it was more M2 territory rather than M1.

A good workable rule of thumb is to aim for the number of ringers to equate to 150% of the number of bells. Our 8 bell tower has 11 ringers at various stages from rounds & cc to Stedman5. Allowing for occasional absences this usually ensures that we have sufficient for Sunday mornings.

I too was a bit put out by Simon comments. As an lockdown learning sexagenarian method ringer it has been very frustrating that there are few expectations of you. Despite his viewpoint I have been lucky to be ringing with some people who have had a more enlightened view and have been very encouraging. I do hope they look again at their 2030 planning.

I have been using the same rule of thumb as Peter Sotheran with 1.5 ringers to bells, we have to constantly look for new ringers as we are a small village (<1000) and we have some young ringers some of whom will be off shortly to University or work and will, I expect, move away. We therefore have our "core" ringers and a moving feast outside of this, but the target is 1.5 ..

Are we looking at this from the wrong end of the problem? Surely we need to take any and all opportunities to get people into ringing. Once any newcomers reach the standard of competent rounds (and call changes?) then please do let more people start. There should not be any pressure to bring those first people to methods - they will know when they want to move forward.

I agree with 2 ringers per bell for the maximum size of a band (for 8 bells or less). Actually, not just the maximum size, but I would say that's the ideal size. Less than that and the combination of holidays, illness, other commitments, etc can easily leave you short. More than that and all the members of the band might start feeling surplus to requirements and not get enough rope time at the practices, especially the less experienced, which increases the chances that some of them drift away. If it's considered a problem that too many come to service ringing most weeks, then have a rota and/or "lend" some to neighbouring towers to help them out.

The reason I think you should have more than 1.5 ringers per bell is I've seen bands of that size collapse surprisingly quickly when just a few people stop ringing for whatever reason. You definitely need more ringers than bells to cover absences, of course, and if just 2 or 3 people stop ringing in the same year, you're suddenly in trouble if you aren't already teaching some replacements. I.e. 2 ringers per bell still leaves an adequate 1.5 ringers per bell after some of them have left the band.

So, my recruitment/teaching rule of thumb is: If the band currently has less than 2 ringers per bell then teach just 2 new recruits per year until you do have 2 ringers per bell. This way, there isn't a sudden influx of lots of new people, which can be a little disruptive to the social cohesion and ringing quality of the existing band, and the 2 recruits can have more time and attention focussed on them than if they were part of larger cohort. Hence they should progress quicker and be good steady ringers ready to help the next recruits.

If you're lucky enough to have more than 2 people wanting to learn, ask them if they wouldn't mind joining the waiting list and explain how it's better to teach, for example, 2 at a time for one year than 4 at a time for two years. The more learners you have at the same time, the slower the progress will be for each of them, which might also lead to a retention problem. Even if you're starting a new band from scratch, just teach 2 at a time until they can control a bell well and then teach the next 2. Arrange for visitors to come to the practices to support the first 2, then 4, then 6...

This is highly generalised, of course. Local circumstances and the aptitude of the recruits could well lead to very different timescales but I would strongly urge sticking to the 2 at a time principle. People will probably be prepared to wait if they understand the reasons for it.

The above advice comes from my experience of starting a new band from scratch at an eight bell tower in 1981 and then being Tower Captain there for 32 years until I moved away. There were 16 ringers left in the band after my ringing family of four relocated and the band is still going strong to this day.

which of Simon's comments put you off? He was talking about teaching a band from scratch, whereas I assume you learnt in an existing band that already rings methods.

At 303 I read the comments as dismissing older learners as not suited to learning method ringing. A bit oversensitive I now see, but I’d picked up the same message from the 2030 planning, discussed on this forum some weeks ago. My message is that some of us are ambitious and will make good use of the time spent training us.

I think it's a rather sweeping step to interpret 'tend to take more effort to get into' as 'dismissing as not suited to'.

I never mentioned a maximum. I referred to two ringers per bell as the minimum to be sure all bells would always be rung. I would never set a maximum.
In the early 1980s our band had just over four ringers per bell. We extended service ringing time, extended the practice and ran a second practice, either for the less experienced or for a quarter. It took some managing but it was at the start of our most successful period as a band, so hardly something to try to prevent by turning people away. Of the 35 that joined the band over the previous eight years, half were experienced ringers and half were local recruits. We would have been foolish to turn away the experienced ringers, and the recruits came forward without much effort and very few of them dropped out.

Seems like there's general consensus that 1.5x - 2x the number of bells is ideal, I think we'll settle towards the lower end as people's attendance is good. There also seems to be agreement that a steady flow of learners is better than "boom or bust", to get people ringing quickly and integrated into the band. And asking people to wait if necessary - which we've done.

, @Penelope Bellis's experience mirrors mine - it's not that there aren't people who are supportive and encouraging of adult learner's, but there's enough of the opposite to make the the process far less pleasant that it should be.

Ringing also has an ageism issue, indeed it's now official CCCBR policy that adult learners aren't who ringing wants, despite the fact that they make up the majority of people interested in taking it up.

it's now official CCCBR policy that adult learners aren't who ringing wants, — John de Overa

I wasn't aware of that. Can you give a link to the relevant policy?

link is in the post above. Plenty about young recruits, which is great. But I've not found anything that specifically addresses the needs of older ringers, i.e. the majority of current recruits - it's almost as if they don't exist.

From the outside, the 2030 programme seems to be an attempt to roll things back to the way they were when the current "ringing hierarchy" were learning themselves, as youngsters. Those days are gone and are unlikely to return. Not only are the numbers used to justify the programme dubious, they fly in the face of demographics - we are a rapidly ageing population. Youth recruitment is important, but it is not the sole solution to towers going quiet. The CCCBR needs to cater for the requirements of the majority of people who are taking up ringing, and provide the support they need to progress as far as they can in the (as we are constantly reminded) limited time they have.

I have been thinking for a while that something more like 3 ringers per bell is what you need to have a long term viable and self-sustaining band. One, it takes the pressure off ringers to absolutely be there every Sunday or no ringing will occur. With that pressure off, it is easier to welcome ringers who have young children/work shifts/ etc, rather than having them self-select to quit.
Also it gives you some contingency for when or if you lose a lot in one period of time.

I think it could make for a challenging practice night, in the category of good problems to have