UKC

The next Peak Area meeting will take place on
Wednesday 10th June at 8.30pm
at
The Winking Man, Upper Hulme, Staffordshire ST13 8UH

http://www.winkingman.com/

Agenda to include:
Access Update
Guidebook Update
National Council Update including appointment of a new National Council Peak Area rep
Dogs at Bamford
Car Parking at Harpur Hill
A discussion about using a designated Peak crag, currently out of vogue, as a test-case to re-invigorate some of our limestone crags

There will be, as always, free food to follow the discussion.

Please note the later start time to allow people to get a quick fix at one of the nearby and totally delicious crags...

If you have any other items you would like to discuss please mail me (through my profile on here) in advance, if possible.

See you there,

Trudi
Peak Area secretary

In reply to TN:

For those who may have missed this yesterday.

In reply to TN:

I'm sure quite a few people will be climbing beforehand. Forecast isn't perfect or easy to predict this far out so I'm not sure what I'm doing yet (might be bouldering under those roofs in the Churnett if its raining).

In reply to Offwidth:
If I remember correctly, you and Rueben have some unfinished buisness on that VS at Ramshaw !

If anyone wants a lift from Sheffield let me know - I'll probably leave the city centre around 5ish and will be stopping at the Works on the way

In reply to Chris the Tall: I can't make it as I will be at Trent Bridge for the T20 World Cup, followed by a pub session to watch Eng v Andorra. I might be quite drunk by the end of it all

In reply to Graeme Alderson:
Fair enough, but bear in mind you will be subjected to a three-line whip for the following meeting - Wednesday Sept 2nd

In reply to TN:

BTW what happened to The Travelers Rest as a venue: it has some of the best chips anywhere?

In reply to Offwidth:
The chips were good but the room wasn't a great place to hold a meeting
Some people seem to think that having a good discussion is more important than chips

In reply to Chris the Tall:

On behalf of Rab who will be attending the meeting next week and putting the following to the group:

I have been driving up to Malham fairly frequently this Spring and due to the length of journey time, many subjects arre discussed to pass the time.

Last week’s conversation turned to the state of the Peak District’s Trad Limestone Crags; a very big question with few answers. It was only 20 years ago when the likes of Chee Tor, High Tor, Stoney and Central Buttress W-c-J were thronged with climbers and people were queueing to do routes. A very different tale now in 2009.

So what is it that has altered this situation; dirty rock, rotten pegs, lack of information or is it just down to lack of bolts and brave climbers. Any one of these might be the reason or a combination of all of them.

So, what should we do about it (if anything) ?

The easiest solution is to do nothing and let future climbers re discover these overgrown gems.

Another solution might be to bolt them, but that would be an admission that current day climbers are not as good as those climbing 20 years ago. Is this true?

A third possibility is to look at each crag separately and try and assess how it might be brought back into vogue. This might involve assessing the state of the in situ pegs, how dirty is the rock, what is access like, if the pegs are past it how can they be improved etc. If it was decided that it was salvageable then work could be done cleaning, information given out on the state of the routes and possibly even media attention be given to the crag.

It was suggested during the car journey that Central Buttress, W-c-J could be a good candidate. A high class crag, 3 star routes of all grades, a single buttress so that it could be looked at individually.

I wonder whether the Peak Area thinks this is a valid proposition ?

Rab Carrington
3rd June 2009.

In reply to MattH:

An updated guidebook might help.

But the other week, when we were queueing for routes at Wildcat, a friend was at Stoney, also queueing for routes. So perhaps fashions are changing again?

In reply to TN:

I'll be there. If the weather's nice I'll be about beforehand, either climbing, walking or bird watching.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

I quite liked it, with the squeezed in attentive masses and ye olde pub decorations it reminded me of something almost dickensian. Then add great beer, great chips, great atmosphere. Only reason it was too small was the frankly superb turnout last year... would have been the same problem at the Lescar (and worse at DW hut).

In reply to Offwidth:

BTW, Peak Area Newsletter available for download as of this afternoon: http://www.thebmc.co.uk/News.aspx?id=3125

In reply to MattH: I think people should think very carefully before opting for the apparently morally/intelectually easy option of suggesting the status quo should be protected.
My following points are very specifically about Central Buttress in WCJ.
It is often suggested that people who are psyched to do stuff at CB will go and clean up these routes then repeat them. This is a nice idea but it doesn't happen, virtually EVER. Why? For several good reasons, some of which I am acutely aware of having recently attempted to buck the trend and go clean up a route at CB:

* Many of the routes are in large part protected by pegs which have either disappeared or are best assumed to be very dangerous
* Many of the pegs are rusted in place hence preventing removal, or have broken off leaving blocked placements
* In many/most cases alternative placements for pegs do not exist
* Few people have a rack of pegs. I do but still couldn't re-equip the route I cleaned due to the factors above
* I spent about 4 or 5 hours on a rope attempting to clean and re-equip one route, even then I failed to achieve a satisfactory end result due to the factors above. I only work three days a week and find it hard to find time to do this. Almost everyone else lack both the time AND the inclination


In my opinion and as evidenced by a lack of traffic on all but a tiny fraction of the routes here, waiting for routes to get cleaned is the same as saying the crag is a worthless historical relic.
No-one wants to die snapping a hold off then stripping a load of rusty pegs. The first ascentionists didn't and neither do today's climbers.
Don't get me wrong I'm totally against straight retro-bolting of the CB. What i'd like to see is a sensitive re-appraisal which puts the routes in something like the condition they where in at the time of ascent. When these routes where done they had a scattering of reliable (new pegs placed by experienced peg placers) fixed gear to back up what trad gear was available and make these inherently loose adventure routes justifiable. This re-appraisal would be something like the process that took place in Wales and turned the slate quarries from a neglected area where people only climbed a very limited number of routes to a quality venue where people want to climb and where the tradition of bold climbing is being upheld. Essentially CB was a crag with a mixture of pure trad and adventure sport routes on it, most routes having at least some fairly critical fixed gear. The rock is the type which will always be unreliable. Some crags still climb ok with loose rock eg crags at Gogarth and on the Lleyn, the type of looseness you get at relatively short overhanging crags like CB is a different animal altogether IMO, it makes for routes which are unappealling and unjustifiable to even the boldest if no fixed gear is used. I favour assement of individual routes and replacement of crucial pegs with decent 12mm bolts. In some cases such as the route I attempted to clean this might result in LESS fixed gear as replacing all pegs would go well beyond the minimalist bolting I'd envisage.
I for one would welcome another more adventurous alternative to the tor of an evening and CB could be just that. It has a very short walk in (5mins if you wade the river), it has very clean rock by peak standards, it has loads of great looking routes. It does not deserve to be ignored by all groups of climbers, which at present and for many years it has been, just look at the number of logged ascents on UKC http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crag.php?id=154
I'm a person who wants to climb the routes at CB in the state they where put up in. Unfortunately replacing the pegs is a none starter. My fear is that the idea will be crushed by people who have never been to CB and have no interest in ever going to CB regardless of what gear it does or doesn't have. I also fear that eventually some renegade will bypass the climbing community and fully retro the crag, an action which would no doubt cause an initial outcry but would probably end up leaving it as just another sport crag.

In reply to Boy:

Which route are you talking about?

In reply to TN:

Is it cricket to suggest an agenda item even if I may not be there to present it?

In reply to Ian Milward:


Its always a tad difficult to debate an item without the proposer being there - you can try I guess!

Si

In reply to Ian Milward: The route I tried to clean and replace pegs on was a three star E5 called That'll Do Nicely. It's just right of the (by CB standards) popular Behemoth. I'd wager that, despite the stars, judging from the state of it it had not been tried for many a year. The climbing looked brilliant.

In reply to Boy:

It is! I repeated this route in June - June 1989, that is. That was a summer when Ian Parsons and I became almost obsessed with Central Buttress, visiting the crag on countless occasions.

I looked in my guidebook and counted up that I've done 36 routes on the cliff, including 6 E4's, 13 E5's and 2 E6's.

But the fact is that since that memorable season, I've hardly ever been back, and when Ian and I stood under the crag, trying to remember the routes whilst writing the last guidebook - and standing under the crag was as close as we got - it was already obvious that the place had fallen into disuse.

I think CB is a major and important Peak crag, but I also think it deserves better than to be merely retrobolted wholesale, as one well respected Peak grandee suggested a few years ago.

Somewhere amongst the doggers and topropers there will be a group of adventurers who would be just as taken with the place as we were, but they are unlikely to realise it given the current neglected state of the crag.

Rab's suggestion is worthy of serious consideration, and I will try to attend Wednesday's meeting to support his vision.

It is probably the best chance Central Buttress will ever get...

Neil

In reply to Neil Foster:


Chee Tor, High Tor and Stoney may not be as busy as they were but they are by no means unpopular. I climb on them every year and it is unusual not to see other climbers. Some of the harder routes at Chee tor do get a little dusty but it is not a big deal to clean. So I refute the suggestion that there is any 'problem' that needs 'solving' at these crags.

Central Buttress, I agree, has fallen into almost total disuse.

I think before any action is taken we should try to understand why the crag is not popular. For me the reasons are fairly obvious. The character of the crag is given in On Peak Rock (1993, so not long after Neil F's ascents) as 'Bold, strenuous climbing on dodgy rock'.

The rock climbing game has diversified considerably since then. Bouldering, sport climbing and indoor walls mean there a lots of climbers operating at a high level without much trad experience full stop, let alone the consummate rock-craft required to cope with boldness, looseness and steepness all at the same time. Along the way the surrounding crags have also become the heartlands of Peak sport climbing, with a tribe of habitues to match, and hence the crag has become an anachronism. In short, it suffers from being out of character with its surroundings.

This more to do with the local climbing population than anything else. The fact that Boy is about the only person to have investigated the crag recently is testament to this. A keen and skilled climber by any standards but, by his own admission on his blog recently, lacking the requisite trad skills for this kind of stuff. It isn't that there aren't climbers locally with the skills, its just that Cheedale is nowadays associated with sport climbing.

My view is if the crag was cleaned, routes repeated and information disseminated this would make the crag more popular for a while, but in the long term it will remain an esoteric venue. I don't believe any bolting is justified to simply make a crag more popular at the expense of its character. Either we accept unpopularity as a *current* part of a crag's character, or we throw away the character, as Boy says, and create 'just another sport crag'.

In reply to TN:

I'm not sure I can get to the meeting - I will try - but I do have a contribution to one of the agenda items and I have a closely-related agenda item I would like to propose:

RE-INVIGORATING LIMESTONE CRAGS.

I'm all for this, provided that this is restricted to cleaning and replacing fixed gear like-for-like unless there is very strong and well supported (on a route-by-route basis) for an alternative. I can appreciate that there may be rare redundant peg placements, for example, that cannot easily be re-used.

My concern is that there is a clear body of present-day climbers who are not into trad at all and any addition of bolts to trad routes will be seen as a concession to their argument that all trad limestone should be bolted for the good of everyone.

This debate has the potential to be be firmly into the proverbial 'thin end of the wedge' territory at is worrying best and my view is that any decisions and consequent action need to be very, very, carefully orchestrated to ensure that the desired outcome is achieved.

By this I mean that trad routes are not effectively retrobolted for lack of effort in replacing conventional situ gear wherever possible.

We mustn't lose sight of the fact that 'popularity' of crags is not necessarily, in itself, a wholly desirable thing. Sure, regular traffic helps keep routes clean and we all appreciate a clean route - but aren't we climbers equally concerned about our collective impact on heavily used climbing areas/routes?

The perceived problem of climbs being neglected is not only about the state of in-situ gear, but about modern attitudes to accessibility, risk, and quite simply the current ‘vogue’ at this point in time.

This, sort of, brings me on to my proposed and, I believe, closely-related agenda item:

OPINIONS ON THE RECENT RETROBOLTING OF THE LORRY PARK CRACK LINES - SHOULD THESE BOLTS BE REMOVED?

Three originally-trad routes at Lorry Park have recently been retrobolted. Very significantly, they are all eminently protectable with trad gear.

'Edge of Darkness' and 'Thunder Road' are E2/E3 hand-jamming cracks, whilst 'Supercrack' is a 3-star E4,6a finger crack to compare with the likes of (say) Bitterfingers. When clean they they all offer good, strenuous climbing.

(Two other trad routes on the crag - one of which is also of high quality when clean - remain in their original state. A further trad route has been compromised (in the past) by the addition of bolts to other (sport) routes)

Admittedly, prior to recent cleaning and bolting, all three named routes were dirty and neglected. However, SO WERE ALL THE ROUTES ON THE CRAG - including the excellent sports routes the crag now boasts.

Lorry Park is enjoying considerable attention at the moment due to the quality of the climbing which was always there, but overlooked by the masses in recent years. Clearly some of the new-found popularity is down to the excellent cleaning and regearing, but crucially, I believe, much is due to the retrobolting of the crack lines.

I for one believe that limestone cracks like those named are a commodity that should be given the respect the deserve. They unashamedly offer their challengers ample protection without recourse to bolts.

The argument for retrobolting these routes seems to have been along the lines of: ‘They are great routes but they are being neglected. Consequently they are dirty and therefore no-one is likely to do them trad. Ergo they should be bolted and then they would be popular sports routes for everyone to enjoy’.
(I suspect the fact that there were no bolted 'warm–ups' for the harder sport routes also contributed to support for their retrobolting).

I am aware that the first ascentionists were consulted about the proposed actions and that there was forum discussion about the proposals to retrobolt on ukbouldering.com.

Personally I would have thought that UKC would have provided a more appropriate forum for such a debate - even more so, a BMC Peak Area meeting?

A consequential effect of this retrobolting has rendered what was a mixed trad/sport crag into effectively a 'sport' crag, thus further reducing its potential for trad teams to visit and, conversely, increasing the likelihood of calls for full bolting of the crag. (‘On The Road’ is also brilliant!)

I raise the Lorry Park situation as a clear indication of what pressures are likely to bear on other neglected limestone trad crags/routes, should efforts to re-invigorate them be (intentionally or) unintentionally unrestrained.

I suspect a number of other climbers would consider the recent retobolting of the Lorry Park cracks a big step in the ‘too far’ direction and I would therefore be interested to hear the consensus view of those present as to the general appropriateness of bolts in 'Peak' limestone trad routes such as these which (exceptionally so in this case) offer opportunity for 'trad' protection previously considered adequate.

Alternatively I might be entirely on my own and I shall be forced to accept the slippery slope has suddenly got much steeper........

In reply to Ian Milward: Comments fully endorsed.

I now await the backlash considering I have added my agreement to this issue but I would point out that I did Supercrack and the other two cracklines to its right only 18 months before they were bolted, my third time of asking. Supercack was a little dirty and the sling on the peg in need of repair and it felt more like E5 because of this but I firmly believe such a great trad climb such as this, not some of the poxy things I have retroed in recent years, should have been left in a trad. state: likewise the trad. routes to the right. On the Road should not be bolted either.

I also feel that crags such as High Tor, Stoney, Chee Tor, Central Buttress in Water-cum-Jolly should be restored to their trad state and nothing else. They should not be made into sports crags as has been suggested. Replacing the in-situ gear may be a problem but perhaps we can consider this on an individual route basis and not in a blanket manner that some may consider.

In reply to Toreador:

You never know....

The current definitive (BMC) Guide to South Peak limestone was published in 1987. Even the latest Wye Area guide was 10 years ago. How many Stanage guides have we seen since '87 - three or four?

In these 'modern' times we all know how much a new guidebook regenerates interest in crags out of vogue (and in those that don't even need the publicity). Gogarth.....

(Having said that, the more recent BMC Horseshoe to Harpur Hill sport guide included Lorry Park but it's influence on that crag's popularity was clearly short-lived...)

Nevertheless, methinks this is certainly a factor in these musings.

Another factor, it appears to me, is that a bigger body of climbers than in previous years are more reluctant to try out neglected and/or newly developed crags, seemingly 'cos they might get their jeans dirty (or - having seen frequent comments on forums alleging elitism in owning/affording* a decent trad rack - don't possess enough nuts)

(Or, literally, in many cases, for 'nuts' read balls?)

*In real terms, climbing gear has rarely been cheaper and look how good it is these days!

[....waits for backlash like Gary....]

In reply to Adam L:

You're ignoring the fact that the rock is a lot looser and the gear a lot worse than when the routes were done. Climbing there now is a lot gnarlier now than it ever has been and continues to get more so.

This is only partly true. As you point out Chee Tor in the heart of sport country is still popular. The reason CB is different is that the routes rely heavily on fixed gear which is now largely defunct and the rock is of a rapidly changing kind which becomes loose without regular traffic. The few exceptions to this rule, like Behemoth, St Paul, The Alien and Knuckle Knocker still retain a level of popularity.
I think restoring the crag to it's former state in the way I described would foster trad climbing in the area in a way an ignored and derelict crag is patently failing to do at present.
If you're suggesting I lack the balls to ground up disposable E5 and E6 routes where falls are highly likely due to loose rock ripping off and probably going to result in decking out when the gear fails, then you are correct. I'm sure there are people who might be capable of getting up the worst routes there if luck is on their side, but I seriously doubt any of them would be fool enough to do it. The routes are not appealing to any type of climber in the current state. Bold climbers ignore the crag as much as anyone else.


I think replacement of fixed gear is a better middle way. Two bolts on a long trad route does not make a sport route. The character of the crag has already been lost as the routes are nothing like the state they were put up in and considered bolt placement is the only real way to restore this character. The current character is dereliction and can hardly be considered something to be cherished or protected.

In reply to Boy:

I think this desire to return the route to some kind of 'ideal state' which it was once in is misguided. The routes were once much looser than they are now, and folk adapted their approach to suit without resorting to the drill.

Initial ascents were made ground-up using aid, this was then steadily whittled away and along the line loose rock was removed. At the time Neil F made his ascents no doubt the crag was in its best state; clean and with relatively little loose rock. I fail to see how placing bolts from abseil will restore it to this state, no matter how limited.

All the hybrid routes I've done in my life I've found deeply unsatisfying, to the extent where I either avoid them or try not to use the bolts. Darius, for example, can be perfectly well protected with a couple of small threads and hexes/ tricams.

I don't agree with your slate comparison on several counts - the sparsely bolted routes on slate were new routes, there was no natural protection, in a man-made environment to start with.

I don't agree with creating designer danger routes on natural rock full stop. I think when even a confirmed retrobolter like Gary Gibson is stating his opposition to you have to reconsider. If you don't feel up to the E5s and 6s why not try the E2s, 3s, and 4s before reaching for a drill?

If loose routes are out of fashion then so be it. I don't see it as justification for drilling them into something that is in fashion.

In reply to Adam L:


I fail to see your point. Perhaps Neil can shed light on this but I suspect that extra peg placement and rock clearance was done on abseil prior to FA on many of the routes at CB, one of us is being naive obviously. As we are unlikely to see a revival of ground up aid pegging I can't see how your point here has any relevance to today. There is no other realistic way to clean a route other than on abseil.
The 1993 On Peak Rock guide describes CB as being unpopular, neglected and suffering from defunct old gear. Sixteen years on I challenge you to put your money where your mouth is and clean one of the mainly peg protected E5/6s ground up.


I agree that pure trad is more satisfying but some of these routes don't suit this approach which is why the FAs used pegs. These have always been hybrid routes, because of the rock and lack of pro they are unlikely to ever be anything more pure. The choice is to do nothing, do the bare minimum to make them climbable or fully bolt them. Obviously as someone who disagrees with all bolting per se and has previously supported the idea of removing all pegs from peak limestone you favour the first option. Most people are less militant. Doing nothing for twenty years has seen this crag turn from a bastion of classic bold peak limestone to a place where nobody goes anymore. You might be happy with this status quo, as someone who prefers hybrid routes to unclimbable ones I'm not.


The CB route where new when the pegs were put in. If a crucial peg can't be replaced there is a good argument to replace with a bolt. The recent re-equiping of the slate included a fair bit of re-evaluation of unused routes and limited retrobolting, hence my comparison. Raven tor is not manmade either, you might favour striping this of all fixed pro, most wouldn't.


Limited use of pegs on the FA was in effect the creation of designer danger routes, hence you disagree with the whole ethos of this crag as it has ever been and would presumably prefer it to be fixed gear free. That's a valid position to take but I think you should be more up front about it so people know where you are hailing from.
Gary actually wrote "Replacing the in-situ gear may be a problem but perhaps we can consider this on an individual route basis and not in a blanket manner that some may consider." Perhaps Gary can clarify but I read this to be in broad agreement with my idea i.e. the most minimal of bolt placing to return routes to the standard they were on the FA. I'm advocating appraisal of each route on it's merits which should include removal of all pegs on some where modern pro makes the original fixed gear un-needed. I fully agree that Darius for instance would be a better route with no fixed gear at all.


I've done a fair bit at CB already up to E5. I'd have done more if I could drag people to the place more often. I'm happy enough on trad E5 on many types of crags and have as much or more experience on peak limestone trad than most including yourself. I'm not happy on seriously dangerous route pretending to be E5s. As you've twice brought up, the rather irrelevant issue of my ability, can I ask how much you've done at CB?
You enjoy routes on the Lleyn and other loose crags. Why do you travel to the furthest tip of Wales to practice this art when you have a loose crag littered with highly starred E5/6 on your doorstep? I contend that the reason is that they are completely different in nature and that the CB routes are far more unpredictable and dangerous hence your studiously ignoring the place.

Unpredictable and highly loose routes on peak limestone, with no reliable gear have never been popular even at CB. When the crag was popular(ish) the routes were clean and had good new pegs (as good as bolts).




Regarding the retrobolting of the cracks at Lorry Park. Is this not a clear example of what happens if the climbing community is paralyzed by indecision on the issue of peg replacement? Eventually someone comes along and bypasses the democratic process, turning a sparsely pegged line into a sport route.

In reply to:

I often wonder if Hard Grit isn't to blame!
A lot of uk climbing dvd's seem to grit routes/bouldering.

I went to Stoney a couple of times last and Chee Tor and there are people doing routes there. Certainly not as many as there used to be.

A crag by crag and even route by route appraisal sounds like a good starting point for a debate.

J

In reply to Boy:

Well in the first case its great to hear that you've done many of the routes and therefore the crag is not as neglected as folk would have us believe.

I think the crux of our disagreement is that you see pegs and bolts as somehow equivalent or interchangeable, I do not. They represent a fundamentally different attitude towards protection: as the rock dictates, or at your convenience? I read Gary's 'replacing pegs' as just that. A bolt is not a re- placement of a peg; it is the artificial creation of an entirely different piece of protection.

Limited use of pegs on these routes had absolutely nothing to do with the kind of designer danger you propose, it was part (as I have already explained but you dismissed) of the natural evolution of the routes from aid routes to free routes.

As you well know, I am not good enough to climb E5 or 6 on peak limestone except in exceptional circumstances, and CB is not a crag that plays to my strengths. I am quite prepared to accept and admit that, and look forward to doing the easier routes and perhaps trying the odd harder one. The reason I have climbed loose routes elsewhere is because I have chosen ones that do play to my strengths, ie not strenuous ones. I have certainly never 'studiously ignored' CB, I am able to accept my limit there may be lower than elsewhere though.

What comes across above is that you've gone through the easier routes and are not prepared to accept you have reached your limit on this crag, in this style, so are proposing changing the harder routes to bring them within your limits. I don't think the argument that this is okay because for a few years in the late eighties they may have been within your present limits is sufficient. By that score I should be able to prepare Braille Trail by gluing pebbles all over it.

When we had this discussion at the peak area meet last summer the prevailing mood seemed to me to be that if routes lose 'crucial' pegs and get harder then so be it. Routes change over time anyway. The efforts of the last few years to keep Mecca in its supposed 'approved 8b' state seem utterly ridiculous to me. Let it change, let it settle, see what results. Luckily there is no sign of either climbers' ability or gear development stopping, so the chances of anything becoming defunct forever are slim to none.

In reply to Boy: My position on the Central Buttress thing is quite clear in that routes should be evaluated on a sensible and individual basis.

I have done most of the routes there myself, including some of the more dangerous routes: Leviathan being one of them: in fact there are only 5 or 6 routes I haven't done there, so I think I can also come to a sensible conclusion on the matter.

I think it would be a simple task for half a dozen like minded individuals to clean the place up and re-evaluate the routes in a manner consistent with their first ascent. Get those half a dozen people, and I would be happy to be included as one of those, to join forces and look to clean and re-equip the crag with a directive from the Peak committee on the gear placements. This of course needs to be sensible and not a directive to create more sports climbs on this atmospheric and wonderful piece of rock. Getting too many people involved in the cleaning and regearing would make it into a circus.

I think other crags could be done in a like minded manner somewhat like other area work parties.

If we get one crag done it would be a good initiative and show positive and collective working for the benefit of both traditional and sports climbers alike.

As a final point, I still feel extremely strongly that Supercrack and its compatriot cracklines should be restored to their former glory and not for those who can't be bothereed to carry some wires and a few friends. Both the lamb and the lion can lie down together in some situations.

In reply to Adam L:


I disagree, in fact the most memorable day of climbing I've ever done was on a hybrid route in Val Di Mello.

I really don't see that if you put a couple of bolts in a route, you may as well bolt the whole thing. Just as I don't see why bolting a route means that the whole crag may as well grid bolt the whole thing.

In reply to Adam L:

A couple of things I am unclear about as someone who is relatively new to climbing on peak limestone:

- Above you mention a difference between the "man-made environment" (i.e. the slate quarries) and natural rock (i.e. CB). The implication is that bolting quarried rock is somehow more "acceptable" than bolting of natural buttresses. This is something that always comes up in these discussions, and I'm somewhat confused. In the peak we have grid-bolted natural crags such as the Cornice at Cheedale, the Cornice at WCJ etc etc. We also have bolted quarries such as horseshoe, halldale etc etc.

We then have venues like Staden Quarry which doesn't have a single bolt as far as I'm aware. We also have natural crags such as those at Dovedale or Stoney with no, or very few bolts.

I'm all for preserving the trad climbing "ethic" in the UK, as I think it's worth preserving, and I'd hate to think that routes like Adjudicator Wall or Sirplum etc might end up with bolts. BUT - I do not understand how bolts in the Cornice at Cheedale, on routes like Countdown or Darl on Two Tier, or at Halldale can be acceptable - yet bolts at Staden or Dovedale are not.

There seems to be little logic or consistency surrounding this emotive issue, and as one of the people who is just discovering the....errrmmm...joys of peak limestone I just don't think it can be as simple as saying "no fixed gear on natural buttresses", or "no retrobolting of routes previously climbed on (now rusty and defunct) pegs". We clearly have buttresses in the peak where these things have already taken place. I'm not saying that makes it right, but the lack of consistency on this issue does seem to cause confusion and uncertainty.

Anyway - on a different subject altogether - good day at Cratcliffe last week?

In reply to 1234None:

It would help considerably if the (BMC?) bolting policies (actually that's not really the best term, is it?!) at individual crags are updated and restated. We all know where we are on natural grit and we're pretty clear on mountain crags and quarried grit. It all starts going wonky on natural limestone and very wonky in limestone quarries. Throw in re- and retro-bolting and it gets wonky on steroids.

This is why I think we need to consider things on a crag by crag/route-by- route basis.

I don't agree that any bolt on a trad limestone route is 'out-and-out' bad and should be chopped - some are as characteristic as the routes they appear on, even if they aren't absolutely crucial - Darius has been mentioned, Lyme Cryme is another. I for one wouldn't fancy (say) Midnight Summer Dream or Circe, for example, without their bolts!

In reply to Adam L:

I know what you're saying but I think the subject is more complex and the nature of pegs dictates hard decisions by todays climber. Were it possible to replace pegs like for like I would be happy to see old pegs replaced with long lasting stainless steel replacements. Sadly pegs are extremely difficult to replace after they have been in place for decades. As such the ultimate question is, do we do nothing even if this means to all intents and purposes loosing classic routes, or do we make a careful analysis of how critical the piece is and replace at the same location with a bolt when circumstances dictate?
In my view it is justifiable to replace a peg with a bolt in roughly the same location, where it is impossible or impractical to replace the peg. The location of the placement remains dictated by the rock, if in a more indirect.

CB is far from a bolt free crag already. At critical points on routes, where a peg placement was not available the FA has placed a bolt. Therefore it's safe to assume that had the FA not had peg placements available at critical points on other routes they would have placed more bolts. According to your rules the bolts they placed can be replaced but the pegs can't if the old placement (as often happens) is no longer useable. In time virtually all the peg placements will become unusable. Yet I also suspect that the choice of pegs over bolts by the first ascentionists had as much to do with availability and easy of placement as any ethical considerations.
Climbing is ultimately a contrived activity with complex loose rules dictated by the preferences of climbers. I think your choise of rules ultimately leads to a significant portion our routes which are reliant on pegs becoming practically unusable/utterly unappealling over time. I suspect that had climbers of the past known that by placing a peg they were consigning their route to the dustbin in 30 years time they would have opted to place bolts in the first instance.
In my view it seems a better to evaluate all routes on there own merit rather than apply one stringent rule regardless of the consequences.

In reply to Boy:


Anyway - getting back to the evening itself - many people are hoping to hit the grit before the meeting.

The forecast - sadly - looks dire.

Fingers X'd everybod!

see you there...

Si

In reply to Simon:
Don't be so negative, the suns out in Sheffield

I'm sure it will stay dry.....


....at least until Graeme is in his seat at Trent Bridge !

In reply to Chris the Tall:
So anyone hoping to get a couple of routes in before the meeting ?

In reply to Chris the Tall:

I think swimming might be a more appropriate way to kill some time...

See you later.

In reply to TN:
I'm really pissed off I've come in the car not on my bike today, looks like it would be great fun out there

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Can we harness the power of technology to bring forward the start time, given that it seems likely no-one will be climbing now...?

Neil

In reply to Neil Foster:
I suspect it's too late, but I'm supposed to be picking Matt and Simon up on the way and was hoping to get there for 8.

Unfortunately it looks like Sheffield is it's usual state of weather-related gridlock so I'm not even confident of that

In reply to :

Anyone fancy doing some routes at Central Buttress on Saturday afternoon?

I'm planning on popping by and (attempt) doing a couple of the easy routes.

J

In reply to Ropeboy: Too much to do on the delayed guides, sorry.