UKC

I've found some web blogs re. the above. One description mentions for the normal route of Dent d'Herens (South West Flank) "scrambling up on rotten rock" and it being hard not to knock off stones. Does anyone have any experience of this route and are conditions as bad as described. It seems preferable to use the West Ridge?

Moran suggests good frozen snow is necessary on glacier and face and that the W ridge is a safer descent.

Does anyone have experience of the route and willing to share experience/opinion on it?

Thanks,

David

In reply to dbm: Made an ascent last year via the West Ridge and descent by the South West Flank. West Ridge was pretty good rock, apart from a small "kitty litter" pitch equipped with fixed ropes.

South West Flank was descended on snow when we did it, but I could well imagine that there could be rotten rock underneath. It's quite a steep descent with lots of down climbing. W ridge will be more technical to descend but safer. Moran book gives good advice...

Brief blog post with a picture of the West Ridge here at http://blog.jamesthacker.co.uk/2012/09/dent-dherens.html

Enjoy the walk in to the Aosta Hut, it's probably the crux..!

In reply to dbm:

We went from the Aosta Refuge. We did the West ridge, gaining it at the Tiefmattenjoch which is approached via a couloir with a fixed rope or chain. The rocky ridge is then followed till it sort of fades into the hanging glacier on its left. Keep going up this glacier then some steepish rocks to the summit. I believe there are steel stanchions now in this upper rocky part - there was a big pile of them ready to be placed when I did it.

In descent I'm pretty sure we took the SW flank - we went left in descent onto a really scrappy face covered in wet snow. I certainly wouldn't have wanted to use it in ascent. I'd say in retrospect simply reversing the West Ridge all the way would be safer and more enjoyable.

In reply to James Thacker:


No, it's the walk OUT from the hut that's the crux!

In reply to jon:


Yes they are now in place Jon. Very useful in descending some very iffy ground, but mountains really shouldn't be tamed in this way.


Agreed, though I think it is more frightening in descent. There was an enormous crevasse at the base of the face, with a single bridge - which was a narrow chute, that all the stones were hurtling down. Getting across it was Russian roulette. It is really quite an unpleasant and dangerous descent route, so the West ridge option seems sensible.

The descent all the way to the roadhead at 2050m is a nightmare! That lake that seemed pleasantly scenic on going in, seems never-ending on the way out.

In reply to jon: You are not wrong there..!

Thanks for the prompt and helpful posts.

David

In reply to dbm: Oh, one other thing.

It is a fine mountain, a real mountaineers mountain, remote, only accessible by your own 2 feet and serious.

You won't get any kudos by saying in the pub "I've climbed the Dent d'Herens", more likely "but have you climbed the Matterhorn" or "have you climbed Mont Blanc" will be the inevitable come-back. But it you succeed, you will know that you will have climbed what is a really testing, worthwhile mountain, even by its easiest route.

Far more memorable than those 2 - but only you will know it.

In reply to jon:

Not so bad if you spend another night at the hut and have a mellow morning while everyone else hurls themselves at the hill....!

In reply to dbm:

We did the West Ridge last summer both up and down, as did the other parties on the mountain that day. The state of the upper glacier didn't look so good, and I expect the West Ridge was a more interesting route anyway.

Watch out for loose rock in the couloir from the glacier to the ridge where the fixed ropes are. The ridge itself was sound, giving some very good scrambling - mainly II.

The upper slopes were well protected by belay stakes as others have mentioned.

We approached the hut from Arolla via the Col de la Division and the Col de Valpelline. The Col de Bouquetins was not easily passable ( we turned back in favour of the Valpelline) and the Col du M.Brule looked best avoided too. You get a fantastic view of the Dent d'Herens from the Tete Blanche though.

Good luck!
JW

In reply to dbm: Great mountain indeed. As a shirker of hut walks I actually enjoyed the walk in and out from the Valpelline a beautiful valley. Book descriptions for the hut walk are now out of date as a bridge has gone. Follow the sign posts!
Cloud inversion made the day memorable.
Nearly got wiped by a block dislodged by others descending the top rocky section. Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide!
Descended the SW flank which is a bit of a mare really. Missed the best line and loads of rubble to play with. Would be fine with better snow cover.

In reply to Tim Sparrow: Maybe next year now...

We had had a great trip and ended up climbing Dent Blanche rather than Dent d'Herens. It,s a long hut walk too but leaves you nicely positioned for the South Ridge.

David

In reply to dbm:

If you had climbed it in the 19th century then you would have climbed the Dent d'Herens and not the Dent Blanche! http://www.zermatt.ch/fr/page.cfm/zermatt_cervin/4000er/dentblanche This is naturally disputed, but seems a very logical explanation, given the positions of the two mountains.