UKC

I’m relatively new to Trad (about 18 months leading, just broke into HVS).  I’ve clearly therefore read a decent number of route descriptions, and have also read some other threads on this subject.
 

But I still don’t get it. Please can someone explain the logic of our approach of not replacing pegs with bolts in certain situations.
 

Last night I really enjoyed bottle buttress at Wintours Leap with my two children.  I really enjoyed the climb, however adequate protection on both pitches 2 and 3 really is dependent on a few pegs which are described in the route description.  I assessed these as adequate but there isn’t really any sensible way of backing them up that I could see.  On reflection today I have the following thoughts:

1. There is a warning on the crag page of UKC from May 2025 stating that there have recently been near misses relating to peg failures at this crag
2. Without these pegs, this route would be completely different in nature, being far bolder and probably no longer VD. 
3. Presumably the first assentionist relied on these pegs for protection. 
4. There is other bolting on this crag, some only 20m away on an E3 called loan shark and an E6 Meningectomy.

Surely therefore, to preserve this route for future climbers it is reasonable to replace these pegs for bolts on as near to a like for like basis as possible.

I fully understand the need to prevent a profusion of bolting, to preserve the nature of climbs as they were originally done, and to avoid place bolts on natural mountain crags.  However I don’t see that given the other bolting nearby any of this applies.

I'm ready to be shot down in flames, please just keep it civil, and try to explain this to me like I’m not a climber (which I appreciate with a mere 18 months many of you will consider is the case anyway!)  

Because judgement is part of trad. You replace wonky fixed gear with a bomber bolt and you have removed that element and sanitised the route. 

With modern gear, protection is vastly superior to when the routes were put up. You can't often use the 'but the first ascensionists had shiny new pegs' argument on much with a clear conscience. I imagine Bottle Buttress was put up some time in the 50s. 

There is of course the 'thin end of the wedge' argument, and one could say it's a solid one since you have proposed retro-bolting on the basis that a route nearby already has bolts. 

Also, there is a lot of re-equipping going on at Wintours. I believe the current ethic is 'like for like replacement, except where it is not possible where a bolt may be placed'. I.e. if a peg is deemed in need of replacing, it will be replaced with a new peg. If the peg cannot be replaced but it's deemed unsafe, it will likely be removed. If there is no alternative natural protection around, then a bolt will likely be placed in lieu. 

I don't really like Wintours; it's very compact limestone, meaning you're usually limited to gear in (sometimes infrequent) horizontal breaks, and it's often pegs smashed into them. 

I've have tried to explain this to non-climbers, and it never works. I've also tried to explain it to climbers from (almost) any other part of the world, and it still doesn't work. That's because the arguments don't make much sense, even though I agree with most of them.

You will hear many well-reasoned and well-explained arguments (such as that offered by PaulJepson in the the first reply, which is a very accurate summary). 

The only thing that I would add is that many good routes get lost to time, as potential ascensionists aren't willing to trust their lives to the ratty old peg protecting the crux, and nobody can be bothered to replace it, knowing that it might well need replacing again in a few years. Then what happens is this: when a bold soul does replace the peg with a bolt (or, worse, a peg-bolt!), the route in question gets dozens of ascents every year, stays nice and clean, and is enjoyed by many. Yet people still complain about it - try explaining that to a non-climber!

Hi Nathan, this is always a contentious subject and applies to most quarried limestone crags. In this case there is a group looking at fixed gear in the Wye Valley and I'd suggest you attend the next BMC area meeting on the 19th August. The meeting is at the Quay in Exeter but you can attend via Zoom if that's not convenient 

And then, of course, there are the practicalities to consider!

1. What qualifies as the OP's "certain situations"?
2. Who gets the landowner's permission to retro-fit bolts/hardware?
3. Who pays for the hardware?
4. Who installs the new hardware?
5. Who monitors the quality of the installation and maintains the new hardware?

I guess that, if you can generate sufficient interest, money, and approval, there should be no barrier to replacing pegs.

Notwithstanding, if I've found the correct climb (Bottle Buttress (VD 4a) then replacing the peg seems somewhat unnecessary: it's a VDiff 4a climb and shouldn't really need fixed protection with today's gear even if loosing the existing peg bumped the grade.

I get it that there is masses of judgement in Trad, quality of gear, degree of runout, ability vs grade.   But how do you assess the peg?  You can’t see the metal in the rock, and you know it isn’t stainless steel.  Surely lots of those that have failed at Wintours looked OK until they weren’t….. or are there lots of people climbing there with poor judgement?!

Which ones have failed at Wintours? I'm not aware of any; certainly not ones which have caused accidents. If a peg fails and the person isn't injured then it probably wasn't necessary. 

What is there about the route which gives it that strange grade? 

Don't know, Tom.

I climbed Overlapping Rib Route (a.k.a. First Pinnacle Rib) (D) last week which is classed as Diff with a 4b section on P4. Until I did it, I didn't know that something that low in the adjectival grades could have a technical grade - Great route though and a fabulous day out.

“it's a VDiff 4a climb and shouldn't really need fixed protection with today's gear even if loosing the existing peg bumped the grade.”

I don’t really see what grade has to do with it, unless I’ve missed your point? A lot of the lower grade routes at Wintours are on very compact rock (aside from the bits that fall off) and quite ledge-y:  the consequences of relying on the sparse natural protection available are if anything higher than they are on a harder route…

No the bold soul would not replace it with anything

I thought it was a fairly straightforward VD, albeit with a slightly tricky start to the third pitch. Not sure I'd give it 4a, nor where that has come from, as none of the pitches on here or the Lower Wye Valley guide get that. 

Great, thank you.  Alas I'm away in the dolomites climbing then, so I won't be able to attend.  I will look out for future area meetings though.

You'll love all the old shite pegs there.

I've just had a great idea. Instead of placing a bolt, get a core drill and make a couple of holes for an Abalakov thread. Climbers can still appreciate the true trad experience by assessing the state of the inevitable in-situ tat and fiddling in a replacement, while having decent protection with no nasty shiny metalwork spoiling the place. It's a winner! 🙂

IIRC many of the pegs in question at wintours are cemented and / or  drilled anyway so they are just a type of bolt, the whole argument for not just using bolts instead of drilled and cemented pegs makes no sense to me at all. That said I can also see the argument for taking out all the fixed gear, its been a while but in some cases at wintours the belays may rely on it which further complicates this argument.

it pays to judge bolts too IMO, I've come across ones that wobble before now.

Me neither, and I've been climbing 20+ years. It's mainly old codgers with misplaced ideologies of 'adventure', and 'how it was in my day'.

Presumably the lessening of protection would up the grade to S 4a or even HS 4a neither of which would be out of place. The issue then might be that the S/HS bit might not be the 4a bit (similarly to how the 5b bit might be the bit that gives E3 to an E3 5c,5b) and that might be a bit of a surprise for leaders of that grade.

Agree with you about ledges being more serious than steep stuff.

If i remember rightly, one of the things about this peg is that you can't see/reach it very easily so the whole section feels a bit sketchy on first sight. 

This, plus the position, adds to the route and getting three stars which is relatively rare at VD grade. 

I think a big old shiny bolt visible for miles would diminish the overall quality, enjoyment of the route. 

Just a personal view, but I don't think more traffic, staying clean, or even more climbers in the sport are valid motivations.

And I don't think any climber is prevented from enjoying their sport because there isn't a bolt in a given route. Just climb something else.

While I accept your point about falls being more dangerous on lower-angled routes, unfortunately grade has a lot to do with it, because of the general level of the climbing ability in the population.

There there are thousands and thousands of climbers who would be capable of skipping a peg on VD (and thus effectively climbing a S or HS), but only a few handfuls who would be comfortable skipping a crucial peg on an E5 (thus making it an E6 or E7). 

As a result, very few people clamour to replace/drill pegs on easier routes, because most climbers are happy to climb the route while completely ignoring the peg, and the route in question might get hundreds of ascents a year. Compare and contrast with a route like The Horrorshow (E5 6b) at Gogarth, a 3* classic which very rarely got climbed due to a couple of dodgy old pegs. Then they were replaced with glue-ins, and now it gets dozens of ascents a year.

I accept wholeheartedly that this is not particularly fair for those climbers who are pushing their grade on the easier routes, but it is the unfortunate reality.

As another relatively new climber but not what you'd consider young at 40 I love the ethics of uk trad. Might not make sense when you explain it to others but who cares. The pegs and other peculiarities you find on lime trad routes are part of the history, and in my humble opinion add to the experience. How do you judge them? Give them a tap, tug, pray to whatever deity you believe in or simply back off if not sure. Most I've come across are surplus to a modern rack, especially if you carry a wide assortment of nuts. That may well not apply as you go up through the grades but how necky do you think you'll really get as a late starter like me? 

Apologies, for the delayed reply, Indignancy.

I think that this point has been answered by Michael and Alun above, but, for what it's worth, my view would be that, if the route depends on fixed protection to make it a VDiff, it probably isn't a VDiff (if the gear wasn't there); it's more likely a S or HS and the technical (4a) grade would actually make more sense.

I don't know the route (or the area) but I can't see how ledges will affect the grade. A fall from low on the route risks a ground-fall; similarly, a fall just above a ledge on a route (however high up the ledge might be) risks a "ground" fall - I would argue that falling from a climb that is (legitimately) VDiff has a low probability for most climbers.

I'm not meaning to have a go at you here Nathan, I only ask the question because you admit you are relatively new to trad climbing.

I wonder if anyone else who has done Bottle Buttress can comment on how well pitches 2 and 3 can be protected without the old pegs. Because that would significantly affect my opinion on what should be done about them.

The long and short of it, is that climbing has local ethics and traditions.

What's de rigueur on Elbe sandstone is a world away from Nesscliffe sandstone or Dinorwig slate or Birchens Edge grit  etc etc etc.

At simplest... the best I can define the logical arguments, carefully appraising the merits and demerits of retro bolting versus pegs versus peg bolts versus blah blah is:  At *InsertLocationHere*  that's the way they do it, so do it their way. If you don't like it... climb somewhere else 🤣

Or, more sensibly, either

a) replace the pegs if they're suspect

b) remove the pegs properly (tapping up and back to their original position) to create a nut placement

c) remove the peg and use a cordless grinder to create a good nut placement so there's no tat left in the route but it can be protected properly.

If removing the pegs would make it a 'death route' for someone at their limits on 4a, how high should the adjectival grade be?  Is it fair/sensible to have death routes at HS? What's the minimum grade for a death route?  This is the failing of the UK grading system - no grade for risk like the YDS has.

This whole thing about judging the strength of pegs is nonsense. Take the Shivers Arete peg, for instance. I hate pegs and even I thought it looked solid. The Rockfax description referred to a "solid cemented-in peg". When pull-tested it snapped at <1kn. The truth is that pegs are either terrible and obviously so, or they're unknown.

I'm not saying that all pegs should be replaced with bolts, but I think there are certain circumstances where they should be.

The minimum grade for a "death" route is Mod, assuming that Easy is no longer in use. Actually the minimum grade is "path", especially descent path.

Once you get to routes with technical grades then risk is usually assessable from the adjectival/technical relationship and a quick look at the route to judge whether a low technical grade means bold or sustained. I'm sure you know all this.

Technical grades below S have been tried but have never really stuck except for Southern sandstone. That's not so much because they're "so easy", more because there's no real clamour for them and it's rather difficult to tell the difference between a 2a and a 2b.

I'm sure there are plenty of Vdifs you can't fall off.

The Arete (VD) And Arrow Route (VD) Are 2 classic rock routes which come to mind. Shall we go stick a bolt or two in them?

I take your point but I'm not responsible for trad climbing grades and I'm pretty sure that I've never mentioned "death routes" in any of my posts.

However, to answer your point directly; anyone who is climbing at their limit on a 4a technical grade shouldn't go anywhere near a VDiff 4a "death route". Just as they shouldn't be jumping on an E1.

That said, you can get yourself killed stepping off a kerb so I suppose it depends on one's definition of a "death route".

Steve,

Having a meeting discussing the Wye Valley all the way down in Exeter seems more than a little odd.

Back a few years any "location specific" discussion was always held much closer, i.e. at Gloucester for the Wye Valley, and similarly close to the actual climbing if involving Cornwall.

A meeting in Exeter will effectively make it either difficult or impossible for most of those who are either concerned or knowledgeable regarding the Wye Valley to attend. Remember, most of the climbers who developed the Wye Valley lived north or east of the area, as recorded in the definitive guides, certainly few came from the south west, and even fewer from around Exeter - I know, I climbed with most of them. In fact many of the Wye Valley's adherents today still hail from well north/east of the valley. Exeter is one hell of a way from Worcester, Cheltenham or the Cotswolds.

Quite honestly, if meetings are reduced to being "on Zoom", then why bother with having regionalisation, as someone living in the Outer Hebrides could have as much influence on Cornwall "rules" as someone living in Penzance, but wouldn't necessarily ever climb in Cornwall. Indeed, it would give too much influence to the "keyboard warrior" types, who like to tell everyone else what to do but never actually do anything themselves. For that matter, being "on Zoom", how could the Chair be sure that these people had ever been to the crags in question, or were just "sticking their oar in" because of some "bee in their bonnet" ?

Apart from the adjectival bit a the start , which contains risk as a component?

Cynically what happens depends on the grade relative to the 'guardians of the crag' - if it's an easy route for them, the dodgy peg stays , or justrots out and ethical purity preserved.

If it's too hard for the guardian to do then nothing is done and ethical purity preserved. 

If it's one of the guardians fave routes then it gets a drilled peg (bolt ) asap. Common sense prevails!

Gotta love UK trad ethics. If you read the Lower Wye valley guidebook, cemented in pegs were agreed as the ethic in a big crag clear up early 2000s. On some routes that meant you can rely on the crucial peg, and generally it works. On some routes I think it has gone too far. The aptly named White Feather White Feather (E3 5c) is an E3 clip up with 5 bits of insitu gear (can't remember if they are all pegs or not) and nowhere near an E3 trad experience.  

Peg-bolts massively controversial elsewhere, so its not really something you can make sense of.

Ok, I can’t be bothered to read the whole thread so I’m probably repeating almost every other post. It’s a fair question for someone who hasn’t done any outdoor climbing so don’t accuse me of being uncivil.

This subject has been done to death and it’s very, very simple. But first you have to conceive of the rock as a naturally occurring thing to be addressed ‘as it comes,’ rather than view it as a base medium for creating a sporting facility.

Bolts can go in pretty much anywhere. Pegs need a crack. If there are no cracks, then you either accept with the lack of gear and deal with it, or run away like me. If you stick a bolt in you fundamentally change the nature of the route. 

Occasionally someone will say that you can still climb it trad style and not clip the bolts. This is 100% cobblers, for reasons that will be obvious to anyone who has ever led a route and felt like they’d quite like some gear to clip. As you asked, bolting removes the aspect of psychological commitment which is a fundamental part of trad climbing.

BTW, I hate that term ‘trad’ climbing. Why is it not just rock climbing? Add bolts and it’s sport climbing.
 

No, you seem to have wrongly assumed what the thread is about.

I have climbed at Wintours Leap but not for a very long time, so can someone explain to me is there any reason why old pegs on this route, or at the crag generally, couldn't be replaced with new pegs?

Someone else mentioned pegs being cemented in there. Is this true of all gets, or just some? Obviously that makes it much harder to replace like for like.

I certainly think this should be discouraged. They aren't designed as permanent placements, they corrode and alter the rock around them. Banging another in repeats this process..... not at all sustainable.

Thankfully, a consensus does seem to have emerged amongst people out there doing stuff, and it's what Will Hunt and others have said on this thread.

Some old pegs don't need replacing at the grade, some removals leave slots for pro when removed, and sometimes a bolt is placed when the consensus is that's the best thing to do.

This is slightly missing the point on the difference between mountain routes and accessible limestone on what is already a mixed crag…

I don’t disagree in principle that there are always going to be some dangerously rump it VDiffs, but surely there’s more community value in maintaining climbable and relatively safe low grade routes here rather than them turning into obscure HSs. 

The OP requested that they be treated like a beginner with no knowledge or experience so that’s what I did. Clearly I’m missing something.

Good point: Elbe has strong ethics for good reasons and yet many breaks on Birchen classics are getting trashed by people falling on and/or resting on cams (when the hard surface layer is broken the softer matrix underneath is much more easily damaged) and I think the crag needs better ethics to protect it.  This grinding damage from cams is even happening on some Stanage classics now.

You've answered the old 'why pegs ok in trad but not bolts?' but that's not what the OPs asking. Restating the old 'bending a knee to the crag' answer will always go down well with some on here but I do think the discussions has moved on, and that's a good thing. 

The issue I have with pegs is that it makes the grade a bit of a guesstimate, unless it's somewhere that they're regularly inspected and replaced, but routes of course always get a firm grade in guidebooks based on their subjective state. Fine to say that bolts will sanitise a route, but then how does one reliably apply a grade to a route with untrustworthy pegs, other than applying a worst-case scenario?

There's plenty of crags where I live in Norway with old pegs that have probably never been inspected. There's a route that I've looked at, for example, that has a relatively low 7- crux with just a peg for protection. It's probably guesswork whether it would warrent say E3 or E5 in British money as there would be groundfall from about 8m were the peg to fail. Fine if routes like this were graded E5 for the element of uncertainty, but more often I imagine they will still have the original grade because people rarely dare to climb them. Probably a sandbag grade as well for that matter because the grade won't have changed in 30 years. Then add some moss and lichen due to the lack of traffic. Not sure that is the best solution personally. 

At the risk of derailing the philosophical debate  with a mundane fact, the feedback for the route on this site reads:

22 Dec, 2021 βeta?

All the pegs throughout the route have been replaced very recently, including the peg belay on pitch 3.

Death routes have a little used UK grading system.  XS HXS etc etc.

Personally, I can only think of one XS in Wales for example but several on South coast chalk ("rock" climbing not "ice" climbing). Not popular... for good reason 🤣

https://www.climbcornwall.com/post/trad-grades-explained

St Michael (XS 5b). I  doubt that you meant this one as your Welsh example but we graded it as VS 4c on the first ascent. It seemed a fair assessment at the time, in spite of a loose block encountered on the route.

From the OP: "Please can someone explain the logic of our approach of not replacing pegs with bolts in certain situations."

That is literally what the OP asked.

Although lots of pegs are placed as at least semi-permanent placements. I'm not talking about going back to the 60s and every team taking a peg hammer with them and placing and taking out pegs (actually still the norm in Scotland in winter back in the early/mid 90s when I lived there). More I'm talking about an old peg being removed and replaced by someone who knows what they are doing with a new one and left, maybe for the next five or ten years, before the same thing happens again.

Jeeez.. this misunderstanding of the word 'literally' is getting out of hand!

I should have been clearer but hey I am ay work. 65 gave a reply to the general, and I'd say outdated 'ethical' question of pegs vs bolts.

The OP is asking why when these pegs are up for replacement, bolts are not considered when there are bolts elsewhere on the crag.  He got a good reply from a local who inferred a fixed gear policy would be up for discussion... as it has sensibly been done elsewhere.

There are some sensible fixed gear policies coming out of local area meets, it's obvious the discussion has moved on from the 'bending a knee to the crag' days, including a now better understanding of what we can assume about pegs as fixed gear.

Well some climbers think that should happen, I disagree and I'm not alone. Basically I think leaving something behind that was never designed as fixed gear and will corrode unpredictably is really daft. The arguments for have never been convincing, and I'm glad more sensible fixed gear policies have appeared of late.

You have to look at the context though.

Firstly, the comments on the route generally seem to suggest that, whilst quite reliant on pegs, they are in good condition on this route. There is (or at least was a couple of years ago) a very active re-gearing team who were replacing fixed gear 'where necessary'.  

Secondly, there are other decent easy multi-pitch routes at Wintours which are not reliant on fixed gear (Corner Buttress routes, Central Rib routes, etc.), and plenty of sport routes (including some easy multi-pitching) in Woodcroft Quarry, if you prefer the security of drilled protection. 

Thirdly, crags like Avon and Wintours are defined by this style of climbing. The routes are devious and winding, weaving their way gingerly up the natural faults in the slabs left by the quarrymen, searching out holds and gear where it occurs (occasionally interspersed with bolted sport routes blasting up the blankness which lives between). Boldly shrimping up slabs between breaks, complex route-finding on barely-visible lines, knowing that even in a mordern world, your fancy rack won't take the edge off. Once you start bolting the trad, you disregard the whole reason these routes exist as they are in the first place. If you want to sanitise the Avon experience, you may as well grid-bolt Avon Gorge (Main Area) and straighten everything out. I really don't like that style of climbing but I wouldn't take it away from those who do. 

https://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crags/wintours_leap-51/white_feather-464... gear includes a cemented in wire - quite odd

I agree. I love the style of climbing that Avon offers bolting these routes would totally spoil them.  I've done every route, some of them as many as 5 times. Having said that as an "old codger" I don't have a problem at places like this with replacing old pegs with bolts as long as it is done with local approval and placing a bolt is a last resort.

Not sure I like the idea of cemented pegs.  Cement contains a lot of moisture and may accelerate rotting.

There is also the matter that we nominally try to preserve climbs in the way the first ascents were made for historic context, i.e that's how it was first climbed and protected. So we oppose dumbing down routes which were climbed in a previous style (i.e protection) BUT back in the day when FA's were done carrying pegs it was also the case that eliminating them was added kudos for ones ascent. In the end routes settled down in their grade with whatever in-situ gear was normal for that sort of grade, turning a V Diff into a VS didn't get any prizes down the pub though when everyone else in your club only climbed V Diff!

There is also that most of the sort of routes we are discussing weren't put up by someone at their limit, pegs were placed because you had no idea what was coming since it was all on-sight first ascents. I went on the first "raiding party" from the Avon Gorge to Wintours Leap which included guys like Matt Peacock and Tony Wilmot and Tony and I bashed out some horribly loose and vegatated routes in what looked like the hanging gardens of Babylon which we gave around Diff-Severe but since we could all truck up what is E3/4 nowadays the few pegs we left were to show the way, not what we needed. 

I'm ambivalent about what happens, having done peg testing I know it's mostly guesswork if they actually do anything when they are left in place but on the other hand watching modern climbers expecting climbing gym levels of safety on trad routes the expression "man up" springs to mind. It's part of the sport!

The meeting is not just about the Wye valley, it's about the whole SW area from Gloucester to Lands End. It will be a hybrid meeting, so anyone interested could attend. Exeter is roughly halfway between Lands end and Gloucester. If it were only about the Wye valley then it would probably be held in Bristol, Chepstow or Gloucester.

Just to take it in a different direction: history is what is missing here. From the 1930s - early 70s, pitons were one of the few means of protecting climbs. As nuts, hexes and eventually cams arrived in the 1960s and 1970s, a "clean climbing" ethic emerged. At around the same time bolts were emerging. In the UK, this created enormous controversy, as two different visions for climbing competed and unilateral actions undermined the smallish climbing community. Eventually, the current "trad ethics" emerged, codified by various clubs, bodies and guidebook writers... but these ethics didn't work everywhere. Existing pegs from an earlier period were still in situ and these were used to justify new pegs or replacement pegs, especially on certain rock types, e.g. limestone, quarried rock, sea cliffs, etc.

We're now entering a new period where a) loads of people are climbing and the laissez-faire culture of unilateral decision-making on fixed gear is passed (or should be!); b) gear is better than ever; c) loads of old fixed gear is rotten. But, we haven't quite developed a consensus about how to deal with this. 

From my perspective, democratic decision making is crucial, whilst also respecting that there should be a high bar to making any decisions that create permanent changes to our precious and limited crag environments. On the other hand, time in Europe has convinced me that trad "ethics" do not fit every context and there are rock types that cannot be appropriately protected except via fixed gear, e.g. compact dolomitic limestone or the glacially carved granite of Ailefroide. This is an important corrective to the parochial idea that trad so-called "ethics" are philosphically, culturally or environmentally superior to other approaches.

Very well summarised. Thanks.

This was a seductive argument that I bought into 40 years ago but increasingly seems to me like splitting hairs. The end product is fixed gear - a piece of metal in the rock for clipping. That already thin line is further blurred by glued in pegs and peg bolts

https://www.ukclimbing.com/news/2025/06/steve_mcclure_on_his_pegless_ascent...
 

The trad ideal is turn up, climb the route just using the features you find- and therefore, place (and remove) your own gear. Fixed gear such as pegs is therefore an inferior solution. 

People aspire to improve the style of ascent. Bolts don’t utilise existing features and require a drill so represent an inferior style - the opposite of what most trad climbers are aiming for.

Reality is often not quite that simple. Peg bolts are just nice looking bolts. YMMV.

Do they? Who are these people? Not pure sport climbers. Sounds snobbish and binary and that you are making the case that it’s trad climbing uber alles and for wholesale bolt chopping.

Most climbers participate in a range of disciplines and styles and can get a kick out of the challenge of pushing their boundaries in a range of things.

Hilariously over the top there Simon!

My memory of climbing some of the routes at Wintours is that the cemented in pegs are placed mainly in shallow horizontal breaks with little or no opportunity for natural protection in the compact rock. I suspect any natural alternatives will involve marginal micro cams where repeated placements will soon wear out the rock. Quite a few years ago now there was a BMC initiative to replace the fixed gear on GO wall where some pegs were replaced with bolts. Personally I think if fixed gear exists (particularly on easy routes where inexperienced climbers often are) it should be reliable and not a lottery draw relying on the judgement of a leader who has ‘nt the experience to make an intelligent judgement call.

IMO having bomber fixed gear would lead to a route getting worn out quicker than if it was left with natural but marginal gear placements. 

I also think that developing the skills to decide whether or not to press on and run it out when faced with little or no gear or potentially dodgy fixed gear is essential for improving as a climber.

It would also re

Also increases the potential for serious injury in inexperienced climbers learning to enjoy an outdoor activity. Personally I've no time for testosterone charged adrenalin junkies imposing their risk values on youngsters embarking on a new fun hobby.

The difference, of course is where such fixed gear can be and is placed. If a route has traditionally been protected with one or more pegs, those pegs are no longer seen as trustworthy, and protecting by removable gear isn't possible without radically changing the nature and the grade of a route, it seems to me that preserving the route could best be achieved by placing a bolt or a pegbolt or a glued-in bolt in the same place as, or extremely close to, where the peg was. The choice of which would be determined by the situation, but importantly it would be restoring routes functionally to their former state of security, rather than changing the nature of bold trad routes to make them safer (as would be the case were fixed gear to be added elsewhere). In many ways I see the value of pegbolts, not in any functionally different way to bolts, but to signal that this is a replacement for a previously placed peg in whatever location was possible at the time, rather than simply a way to make a section of bold climbing safer.

I think characterising climbing as a fun hobby is interesting. Youngsters getting into climbing should be under no illusion that whilst it is a rewarding activity, honest mistakes and misjudgements can be unforgiving.

Reading that back it sounds a bit pompous, but I'll leave it there.

Reading that back it sounds a bit pompous, but I'll leave it there.

Pompous or not (personally I don't think so), you're absolutely right. A critical part of climbing is risk assessment while doing something that has actual and serious consequences. This is true for both trad and sport climbing (how many wear-a-helmet/check bolts comments and the like on here)? 

You can watch a YouTube video and go have a go at sport climbing and at least some people will probably say it's at least unwise as you don't know what you're doing. Trad even more so. 

I'm one of the most cautious and risk averse people I know! I mainly sport climb and boulder nowadays because I don't enjoy pushing myself to my limit physically on sea cliffs or in the mountains any more. But youngsters (and anyone else who climbs for that matter) need to have the opportunities to climb bolder/easier routes as well as safer/harder routes.

There is no right or wrong answer to the topic of pegs & bolts on trad routes, the ethic has to be a consensus reached by climbers. The thread nicely discusses many of the issues, pros and cons around the subject.

As BMC Wye Valley Access Rep I have been updating the fixed equipment policy, building on that published in the CC guides (Willson 2007 & 2010), and the work done in Avon more recently. A draft of this was presented at the BMC Area Meeting in Exeter Feb 25 and I’m happy to share this with anyone if you email me. In addition, I intend to hold an open meeting late September 25 for a full debate (probably in Chepstow - tbc).

The outcome of the open meeting will finalise the fixed equipment policy ready to be published in planned definitive Lower Wye Valley guide. So please participate in the BMC Area meetings and indeed the open meeting if you get a chance.

Tony

[email protected] 

The proliferation of climbing centres and the crowds therein certainly has led to the characterisation of climbing as a fun safe hobby. I started climbing when I had a rope round my waist , a couple of moacs , some slings , pair of sand shoes and waist belays. My intro to climbing was Shackle Route on Buchaille Etive Mhor and included an unroped descent of Curved Ridge. So I know the changes that have happened in climbing over the years.  Very competent indoor climbers venture outdoors expecting the same level of safety and that is when accidents can easily happen. I’ve gone to clip pegs on E4’s on sea cliffs and the peg come off as I touch it. That’s part of the game at that level , but competent indoor climbers but inexperienced outside leaders playing fixed gear lottery on easily accessible easy routes is just an accident waiting to happen.

The original peg was placed according to the ethics at the time. If that route were to be put up now it is inconceivable that either a peg, let alone a bolt, would be placed. The question should be whether the grade correctly reflects the difficulties and risks. However bear in mind that VD stands for "Very Difficult", and whilst that is no longer true by modern standards it is not unusual for VD routes to require some boldness in places. Also bear in mind that being able to climb at a particular grade does not mean you can climb every route at that grade - there will always be some which do not suit your physique, style or temperament, and most of us will have found ourselves in unexpected difficulties on a route we assumed would be straightforward. Learning to deal with that (including learning to accept defeat) teaches us a a lot about ourselves and is part of why we climb trad.

I am by no measure a bold climber, but I would opposed replacing a peg with bolt in such a situation (and would question replacing the peg, but that is for locals to decide). Making those judgements and learning what level of risk you are prepared to accept is what distinguishes trad. If I am not bold enough for a particular climb that fault lies with me and not with the route.

Anyone approaching climbing as a "fun activity" is seriously misguided. At any grade, it involves a serious risk of injury or even death, and that includes sport and even indoors.  The BMC participation statement is not just empty words. 

My answer to that is to make those people aware that they shouldn't expect outdoor climbing to be as safe as indoor climbing, not to make every crag as safe as possible 

Yes there is a difference but my main point was that it was smaller than many people make out in building their points in ethical discussions. As you point out that difference does matter practically in what to do with existing routes and old gear. Personally, I’m all in favour of revitalisation of the sort you describe.

It’s a surprise this approach has been pioneered and gained acceptance at Gogarth. Lots going on in different areas with crag activism and local debates of what to do. Regrettably in the Peak a small handful of atavistic fanatics (the sort who used to be referred to as purists in guidebooks) are trying to take things backwards.  

Good point. The pegbolt also is less visually jarring in an environment where people are used to pegs and is a kind of concession and politically less likely to stimulate an emotive chopping than if it was a bolt. Anyway it appears to have been successful in this regard but I still can’t help but feel that replacing an old peg with a bolt is more honest. 

Weird that White Feather has a cemented in wire.... 

This difficult section, the Yellow Slab has a technical grade of 4b, but can be easily avoided by climbing to the right quite easily. The main difficulty of the slab itself cannot be protected by modern gear. It is blank, but there is a runner of sorts immediately you have climbed this section. Obviously done in traditional gear of big boots (not uncommon on Tryfan) on a damp day, it is indeed a serious challenge. I don't know where the 4a grade comes from but it's 4b in the CC guidebook (Mike Bailey). There are however lots of anomalies between Descriptive and Technical Grade as you will discover in different guidebooks. An obvious route that comes to mind is the classic Direct Route on Dinas Mot, only Very Severe, but 5b on the final pitch! I leave it to you to discover many more, but all part of the pleasure and excitement of British Trad climbing. Long may it continue!

On the general contentious topic of fixed gear on climbs, there used to be a convention that no fixed gear be placed on either mountain or sea cliffs, but quarries were fair game. Probably that distinction has become somewhat blurred in more recent times.

We’re not talking about making every crag as safe as possible. My observations are that keen indoor climbers venture outdoors and try easily accessible and easy outdoor routes. Most head to sport but a few venture onto trad. Their expectation is that fixed gear in place is as reliable as clips indoors. Now if that gear is part of the fixed gear lottery and should’nt really be trusted then accidents will happen as these guys do not have the experience or equipment(small cams, brassies etc) to back it up.The routes the OP is describing ie a vdiff with cemented in peg protection at Wintours is almost top of that list being an easy route easily accessible from the south of England where there is a dearth of such beasts and a multitude of keen indoor climber’s inexperienced outdoors.

There is still a moratorium in place in West Cornwall, no fixed gear which includes bolts, pegbolts, pegs belay or abseil stakes. On the North Cornwall Coast, now renamed the Atlantic Coast in the new guide, out next spring, there are still pegs on a number of routes but most are 20 years old and useless. The moratorium does not apply to this coast nor to the Culm and Baggy except with regard to drilled gear. Some of the main activists have placed pegs but only in the higher E grades, removed them afterwards but keep a record of type for the few that might want to repeat these routes. Stakes are permitted and there is a plan to start replacing important ones. Also at Vicarage Cliff and Lower Sharpnose on the Culm there are fixed cable belays or chains provided by the BMC and placed by volunteers from the BMC SW Area. Policies do change but there is a strong feeling in this part of the world to protect the trad, adventure ethic, even if that means some superb routes do not get the traffic they would, if made safer through fixed gear. 

And I would rather we collectively prioritise continuing to spread the message that climbing outside is not and cannot ever be completely safe over trying to make outdoor climbing as safe as possible.

Sunset Slab (HVS 4b) is a brilliant route mainly because of its boldness. I don't know if Bottle Buttress might be a brilliant VS 4a without the pegs but I think British climbing would be going in the wrong direction if this possibility isn't considered and the automatic reaction to the potentially dodgy pegs is to try to make the route safer.

I've done Sunset Slab maybe 20 times but I probably won't do it again because that kind of climbing scares me too much nowadays. But I'd hate to deprive younger or bolder climbers the opportunity to climb it in its currently unprotectable state.

In reply to InTheSea:

Your anonymity does you no favours.

I would quite possibly agree with you, but hiding behind a meaningless pseudonym makes it very difficult to respect your opinion as much as might be possible otherwise.

Edit: I appreciate that sometimes people feel the need to keep a work persona separate from a private one, but all too often it seems that pseudonyms are used simply as a front to enable saying things that the same people wouldn't be prepared to say face to face, or with any degree of accountability.

I think that's sad.

Please help us moderate by reporting new/suspicious users who comment on this thread. There is a specific user who has created multiple accounts.

I've never been convinced by this personally. I can call myself Mike Salt or Neville Windolene and it's never going to mean anything to you or anyone on here that doesn't know me personally anyways. What's the difference unless people are going to attempt to Facebook stalk strangers?

If you think there are people reading who know you personally and can identify you by your username (even if it isn't explicit, just well known enough to be identifiably you) then I think there is a big disincentive to write in a way that you may not want to have to be accountable for afterwards.

There's a lot to be said obviously for assessing how good your trad gear is, but clipping pegs is ultimately a guessing game, and not one well set up beginners.  

Edit - Sunset Slab is a fantastic route (since when HVS!?) and obviously very bold.  The route in discussion here is different as in theory it has a peg runner, but it's luck of the draw if it's any good.  

How much is a lot? I’ve had good hand placed gear fail and marginal gear hold. Similarly had bomber pegs snap and marginal pegs hold. I reckon it’s less of a lottery with hand placed gear but not by a major margin.

It can be protected by modern gear. What I object to is the main grade being described for that slab. The route should be nearer S 4a IMHO and more like a supplementary VD if you bypass yellow slab. The same applies to Land's End Long Climb (HS 4a on the crux final wall and at least HVD 4a for the steep jamming groove) and on the climb I've done most recently, Slanting Buttress (at least top end HVD 4a in the second tricky groove section before the 'knife edge' ridge). All these bypasses should be the supplementary lower grade. We make so many allowances for better climbers on harder routes but on those climbed by relative novices and bumblies we don't always... even though a fall could be more serious for the party (as you will generally hit stuff).

It matters. It’s a community 

Have you considered that blanket rules of this type are stifling - not even one cliff available for sport!?.  If I was a sport climber living in Cornwall I’d be raging. Thankfully I don’t.

It may well be stifling for sports climbers, but that is the policy, which after wide consultation I wrote, and was agreed after a number of BMC area meetings. There is some limited sport climbing at some of the inland quarries, personally I'd like to see more, and I feel there is a good case to be argued for opening up some of the slate quarries on the Atlantic Coast for sport climbing. However when this was proposed at  a BMC SW area meeting, it was voted down. 

To me, it is important that this should proceed by consensus. The last thing we want is a return to the bolt wars of West Cornwall of 30 years or so ago 

Maybe. Or not. I understand the logic but don't see it. I'm NaCl on here and various friends know this and also my r.l. name (stated above). They also know that I'll largely say what I think either way. I think if someone is of a mind to offend they'll say it anyways as the people who know them know this. It'd probably stop famous people as they have something to lose but that's about it. 

Edit. Sorry for the hijack. Bolts have no place on trad routes imo. Less than ideal pro is part and parcel of trad and sanitising by adding indisputable fixed gear just reduces it to the lowest common denominator. Following the thread on Mountain project about mussy hooks being misused when lowering, its not improving the routes as much as educating people that's required. 

A policy is it? I missed the memo that the BMC had become a governing body for outdoor climbing. Sounds like institutional bullying to me. 

You are talking rot here Simon. The BMC and its area meetings are a mechanism by which a fixed gear policy for an area can be agreed  by local climbers (not dictated by some governing body). The alternative to an agreed consensus is the chaos that ensues when a group of die hard sport climbers decide to bolt a crag, then an equally die hard group of traditionalists decide to chop them.

Am I? If it’s a policy then you are looking to govern others. The tyranny of the majority - a consensus of climbers who can only look at things through the prism of trad climbing quashing the aspirations of a minority (if it exists) of aspirant sport climbers. Well that’s alright then. Remind you of anything? So glad I left Devon and all its parochialism in my teens.

In claiming that there is a tyranny of trad climbers, you are seriously misrepresentating the situation. There have been a number of occasions where proposals to bolt certain climbs or cliffs have been brought to SW area meetings. The proposals have been widely publicised and debated. Some have been accepted (by trad as well as sport climbers) others have been rejected.

Dividing climbers into trad and sport is itself artificial as the majority of climbers seem to enjoy both disciplines at different times, some even go bouldering.

We should all assume that pegs can't be relied on. I don't think many people argue that pegs are an integral part of our crags and need to stay. The disagreements are all around should they be replaced with something safer or removed entirely.

Democracy is not perfect but it's the best system we have, said somebody or other at some point. Who is better placed than the BMC to lead on such discussions?

All that trad climbing and they wouldn’t even toss sport climbers a bone with the slate cliffs which are of next to no interest to trad climbers. So selfish. Anyway not where I live anymore so not my fight thank goodness.

There are some of us old enough to recall the controversial use of a bolt on Cloggy by Pete Crew, and likewise by John Redhead on what would become Indian Face. You only climb it if you are good enough. A line of bolts would effectively bring the route down to another rather mundane sports route. Keep your bolts and pegs for quarried rock. I was fortunate to climb some of the earliest routes on North Wales Slate, and can't recall many bolts. If there was no gear, you just ran it out or came back another day.

There is a bolted quarry in Cornwall, Simon (Cheesewring), but certainly not my cup of tea. Some folks won't be satisfied until all climbs are bolted. Shades of the bolt ascended cancer that affected Italian mountaineering in the 1970/80s.

It's not that straightforward. Wintours is a quarry. Avon is a quarry. Plenty of famous sport crags are unquarried (Cheddar, Malham, etc.)

Curbar, Froggatt, Stanage North: Quarried.

I don't remember it that well tbh. Yesterday's Dreams also a softer. Maybe it's that one that has all the bolts

I did it last year and don't remember a steep jamming groove. The main bit I thought merited a higher overall grade was the pitch traversing right on breaks which needed a good range of cams to make it safe enough and certainly didn't feel like v-diff climbing. 

According to the feedback the new second peg on the second pitch of Firefly (E3 5c) ripped in a fall.

It's pitch 2 "The Elbow crack". Pitch 6 the delicate traverse (or jump) isn't VD either. The bold final pitch (8) had a rock scar and may have lost a key runner placement....

I gave up pegging years ago, much too painful

I've waded into this argument several times on here over the years. I won't rehash my arguments again as I'm sure they've been covered. But yes, I find pegs on trad routes to be no more "trad" than a bolt. Either lose the peg and increase the grade, or just put a bolt in.

> The outcome of the open meeting will finalise the fixed equipment policy ready to be published in planned definitive Lower Wye Valley guide. So please participate in the BMC Area meetings and indeed the open meeting if you get a chance.

There is no obligation in climbing to anyone to 'preserve the route' for others, although some of us may devote time and energies and wish to do this. It is about turning up with your own gear and being self sufficient: have you learned all the technical skills necessary to do this climb? To route-read? To place gear and build safe anchors? To retrieve stuck gear? Rescue yourself or an injured second? There is no obligation whatsoever for the route to be there in the first place. We are exceedingly privileged to have a safe line with prior ascentionists to show us the way; any pegs that happen to remain are a courtesy to us future climbers. Pegs are not exactly like 'fixed' gear in the way that bolts are fixed. Pegs are, to my mind, more like courtesy gear, in that they are aiding gear left in by the FA. So as a courtesy to the rest of us, they are ours to use, in much the same way as stuck cams or nuts often get clipped.

I am happy if pegs get replaced if possible, extending the courtesy. But a rock face is not a climbing gym - I would be just as content if the pegs fell out. The grade would change to reflect it, even if it was easy climbing with death potential; I would not climb it if I didn't feel confident in the gamble, and that I feel is a part of climbing we must be willing to accept. No climbing grade means 'this is safe'. Some may be considered 'safer' than others, that is all. 

Bolts are a used to make routes that could not be feasibly protected protectable - this is often abused and routes that shouldn't have bolts do get bolted. But ultimately, if a route has pegs and you are worried about a peg coming out, take some pegs and hammer with you perhaps.

Part of the problem with Wintours Leap pegs is that the technical grade of most of the (regularly climbed) routes is comparatively low, and if these pegs were not there, then the overall grade would be completely out of kilter.

If pegs were eliminated completely, rather than kept or replaced - in in some form or another - then this would then mean that these routes - which are generally great multi-pitch routes for "normal" climbers - would become completely unused, as the overall grades would have to reflect the "death or serious injury potential" in each case. Your average E5 climber isn't going to climb a "death route" that's technically 3C to 4B and your average V Diff/Severe Leader will avoid the place like the plague.

Pegs were the norm when these routes were first put up, and left in partly out of generosity, and partly because frequent placement and removal of pegs would both alter the routes character and lead to erosion. As vital pegs which had been left in were later stolen, subsequent pegs were cemented in, both for security and to reduce rusting.

At Wintours Leap the choice surely has to be between replacement (when required) of existing pegs and their replacement by some equivalent at the same approximate point - bolts being one option if appropriate.

The other options are not worth contemplating, these being either death-route "E5 4A's" or V Diffs/Severes that may become E5's at any moment, and no amount of checking what can be seen of the pegs has any bearing on what the peg in question may be like within the crack.

For that matter, everything above is equally valid for Avon Gorge.

The date for the BMC open meeting is set for Sat Oct11th at the Chepstow Arts Centre.

All are welcome to participate in this important debate.

The feedback will steer the fixed equipment policy for the next decade. 

Just a small point: you can't have an E5 4a. VS 4a is 4a with no gear, HVS 4b is 4b with no gear.

There’s something to be said for placing some bolts or cemented / glued in pegs at Wintour’s (including at lower grades) if the demise of a peg makes the route unsafe (as opposed to just bold). It’s a mixed crag anyway, as you say. It’s also heavily reliant on pegs in some cases. 

Most - if not all - of the VS 4A or HVS 4B routes you allude to are on grit, where a ground fall would be 30 to 40 feet, whereas at Wintours Leap a ground fall on a few of the (dodgy) pegged routes I know would involve a fall of 200 feet or more. Therefore instead of something that can be survived - after all the early exponents of gritstoning were adept at "dropping off" safely, something even we at Symonds Yat in the 70's were doing - into certain death.

I would strongly suggest that such routes would not be classed as VS 4A or HVS 4B, but would instead be classed as XS - indicating zero survival probability. Either way, they'd be unclimbable by anyone operating at 4A or 4B who didn't have a death wish.

The fact that this is a subjective opinion, not something objective about the route is probably one of the main reasons there are so many long threads about bolting or not bolting!

As a former BMC secretary for the South West, the system is possibly /probably more difficult than most areas. There is no natural social hub like Sheffield or Manchester. Even Cornwall just by itself, is long with poor roads in some areas and 3/4 (roughly) completely different environments, The Culm, Carn Gowla, West Penwith and The Lizard. I engaged in (and minuted) many issues on many areas. In my experience those attending Zooms were patient, respectful and very understanding of issues in areas not in their environs. Wintour I remember very well. Those active in this area went to great lengths to consult, understand, and when all agreed, make changes and record them via the regional meetings. I don't remember any keyboard warriors, even about Ansteys, and that is about as controversial as it can get.  Actually the BMC do this stuff very well and I'm full of admiration for those volunteers who have committed a great deal more time than I.

If however, you wish to create a more local group to discuss issues specific to you local area, or even propose and help roll out improvements to the volunteer processes,  contact the BMC in the relevant area and people will do as much they can to help you get it going. After all, no-one wants to be seen as 'just a keyboard warrior'.

I can see what you are getting at but there is a long established "tradition" of pegs therefore they are more trad than a bolt by definition.  Bolts are relatively new. I do however have some sympathy with your last sentence.

California Arete is a non grit example at E1 4c. I can't see how any route with 4a crux moves on solid rock but a significant chance of a fatality in a fall could be more than HVS 4a. Only if the rock was loose might it be XS.

Relatively is still 90 years for aid climbing and 50 years for free climbing. In the US and the Czech Republic where the ground up approach predominated bolts were very much part of trad climbing. 
The ethical distinction between bolts and pegs is very tenuous. They are both situ pieces of metal bashed into rock. 

I wouldn't say it was in the least bit tenuous. Pegs can only be placed where potential placements exist, whereas bolts can be placed more or less anywhere as the placement is literally created from nothing. The only real similarity is that you need a hammer to place either of them.

We will have to agree to differ - you’re not telling me anything I don’t know already

Of course you know it already. It's plain as day. So to claim that such an important difference is "very tenuous" seems to me to be disingenuous to the point of absurdity.

When it comes to potentially replacing knackered pegs in the same location, I would agree that the choice between bolts and pegs is a more nuanced decision, but to imply that bolts and pegs are essentially comparable in general is simply wrong.

You say potato and I say it really isn’t an important difference. This is a matter of perspective rather than something that is “simply wrong” or for that matter “simply right”

We both grew up in an era where the differences between a peg and a bolt where being argued to and fro incessantly. My view now is that differences were generally exaggerated. 

Leaving aside the aspect of reliability then the common aspects are they are both pieces of preplaced metal in a rock with an eye for climbers to clip for the purpose of leader protection. From my perspective that makes them, say, 95% similar in their attributes, function and utility with the 5% difference being that you can only place a peg in a crack. You might personally attribute that difference to be important enough to warrant 50% or more. 

My impression is that increasingly younger people are viewing it all far more homogeneously as just “fixed gear” and I largely agree. 

Who am I to say to what extent that might be true, and to what extent confirmation bias may be making it appear so?

XS has meant different things in different times and places, but nowadays it is usually reserved for routes on inherently unstable rock, e.g. chalk.

"You don't get it" - the essence of the answer is that climbing in the UK is steeped in tradition and the bolt/no-bolt/peg issue is part of that tradition.  There are no 100% logical and fully consistent answers to your questions.

Rather, by today's aesthetic standards there are mistakes and practices of the past, present and the future.  Also remember that the natural environment isn't there as your climbing gym to be shaped for your convenience.

There is a beauty and glory to the tradition of UK trad that is increasing under threat from convenience bolting and the fading ambitions of a cohort of senior (aged) activists with too much time on their hands and a strong desire to bag routes to secure their legacy before their arms give out.

When you ask a question like "why can't we replace bolts for pegs" you'll get a range of answer from a range of vested interests and, currently, this flank of activists are vocal in pressing their case for being able to do what they like, nothing more, nothing less, they simply want to do as they wish.

You've just broken into HVS and there are more than enough routes to keep you busy for a lifetime without any need for bolts to replace pegs. By the time you're 1% through the climbs available I think you'll fully appreciate the aesthetic that proper trad gives you and that you cannot get this with bolts. 

For now just accept it is a bit of a mystery with my promise that when you look back from a point of greater experience you'll appreciate that the "thin end of the wedge" argument often prevails and holds back the bolters leaving you the wild terrain to enjoy and them the grotty quarries to bolt.  It's annoying and scary to rely on a rusty and dubious peg but once you consider the alternative of everything being a clip up you rue the day you let it happen.

I suppose you can ‘grade’ death routes by just how deadly they are

Is that the same as having an opinion 🤣

Sorry, won’t happen again..

We are asking can someone die harder?

Being serious again, anyone falling from an exposed 4a move more than 10m up will likely die,  be it solo on a cruxy VD or from XS vertical unprotected rubble. Adjectival grades are the full collection of factors that rank onsight trad leading difficulty.... there is no such thing as an E5 4a.

I've climbed a few routes that would be HVS 4a in Joshua Tree, given 5.4 X but maintained without bolts (except on belays) for historical reasons.

Bang enough of them in and you might eventually end up with a clean placement and the entire argument of replacing them with bolts can go away...

Like... 

D0: you'll probably die

D1: you'll die

D2: you'll die twice

D3: three times

D4: you'll die and go to hell and spend eternity dying over and over again

...?

Personally, I'd prefer to just have a VS 4a grade. Then you know it's a walk but don't bother with a big rack.

It's a walk for you... for someone where Severe 4a is their limit its bloody serious and hard. The average logged grade here is HS which is something I celebrate... thanks to trad, low grade bouldering and scrambling the UK has a breadth of inclusive climbing adventures which is maybe the best anywhere.

That is the problem with Wintours Leap (and indeed Avon Gorge).

If something isn't done then there will be no lower grade long multi-pitch routes in England & Wales outside of the mountains. This is because a V Diff or Severe Leader isn't going to risk it unless they have a death wish, and those leading a bit harder are also going to have the same common sense. On top of this those leading in the E numbers won't bother climbing such a technically "easy" route.

The next result will be no traffic on the routes at all, followed by the vegetation of any cracks that currently provide the remaining natural protection locations.

In the past some of the same people (climbing the E grades) who have decried re-gearing of the existing lower grade routes have at the same time insisted that the E numbers were "different" and should be bolted, because otherwise there wouldn't be any protection on them - talk about double standards !!

(And I was present at such Meetings, but being a "lowly" VS Leader my opinion then was judged as carrying less weight than that of an E5 man, even though I actually climbed the routes in question and the E5 people didn't any longer).

You're the type of person I referred to as the "E grade climber" above.

Try thinking about the people who might actually climb below your level and would enjoy such routes, if made safe to do so.

Didn't someone rip their belayer off the top of Zelda or something at Wintours and both plummet to the ground? One surviving because they landed in a tree.

I don't think your view on grading represents the reality. In sub-extremes it seems that 'pretty bold' adds an adjectival grade; chop routes add 2 at the most. 

There are examples of well-travelled routes at Wintours which you absolutely cannot fall off at certain points. Cheetah and Puma for example. Both get HVS 5a, both could easily kill you, both get climbed lots. 

I think you're exaggerating a bit (and you forgot some of the fantastic long sea cliff routes) but I agree with your general point. Letting a classic pegged VD 3c become a HS 3c because of overly rigid ethics is not something I support. Case by case assessment on agreed BMC area policy is best for this and the SW BMC area seem to be doing well despite area size and a huge variety of venues. I don't see such daft elitism on like-for-like replacement anymore at area level.

I once climbed an E10 4a at Taffs Well Quarry in S Wales - at least that’s what I would have given it

Exactly. Many pegs were banged in before the advent of microcams and ballnuts, it won't take much careful peg removal and replacement to make a good placement.  Might start a new thread on the subject of man-enhanced gear placements when this one dies.....

BTW, for those who didn’t notice it, my last remark was not meant to be taken very seriously.

D5: you'll be transported to a state of purgatory where the only reading material is climbing ethics debates hosted on UKC 😉

I was just being frivilous, but... I'm not sure about the climbing grade average. I suspect most keen climbers are operating at VS - E1, and doubt there are that many regular climbers who consider 4a "bloody hard".

Anyway, we're off topic. I think pegs should be replaced, ideally by something long lasting. But, not because otherwise people will be climbing "E5 4a". Let's not exaggerate.

On that I wholeheartedly agree.

You’re chucking a lot of stones around but hard to tell if you are living in a glasshouse or not, with your stark profile and hidden ticklist. 

The logbooks say otherwise or the average trad log wouldn't be HS 4a.  We are not talking about UK tech 4a moves bouldering,  its the ability in UK trad grading... ie. it's for onsight in the situation you find them. I was doing OK on quite a few E1s onsight when the bold wall finish of Land's End Long Climb (a VD!) worried me onsight (something I'd give HS 4a).

Lol..... I've done stuff in various places where biting ants, wasps, hornets, or even an adder once, added up to a few adjectival grades. Plus, fulmars always decrease style points.

The average trad log includes everything logged, no? My average is also HS, but this figure is almost meaningless in saying anything about what I actually climb in a year. If I climb an E2 and a Diff in the same week, it comes out as HS average.

There are stats on best lead as well...most dont climb E1. Below that, the vast majority of trad leaders are operating below extreme for their best climb this year... just look.

Yeah....but if S 4a was your limit would you not be a bit reticent to pull onto something two grades harder with the same tech grade? If you're going to ignore what the grade is telling you, its not surprising if you them find the route bloody serious and hard?

Why is the onus on making the environment safe for people who don't have the full range of skills for the environment as it exists? Why is there any expectation that just because the moves are easy, that the gearless slab should be brought down to the level of those who can make the moves but not 'do the thoughts'?

I say this all as a very mediocre climber who can pull a fair few grades harder than they can think.

The nature of the routes fred mentioned were once suitable for a VD leader and now are not, due to peg degradation. Change such a grade to E5 and suddenly like-for-like replacement would have been taken more seriously, I hope with the new SW fixed gear policy the lower grade routes will be treated the same way.

As for your reply to me.... my point was the following statement was an extreme climber's view of a 4a onsight:

If it's VS 4a, the VS leader knows they need to be confident soloing such moves (with a bit more of a safety margin to allow for misgrading, given the obvious seriousness of a fall). For VS leaders it won't feel like a walk. There is a chipped VS 4a slab at Widdop that stays remarkable quiet despite being a really good climb.

There may be an argument for bolting these to make for safe experiences for VDiff leaders, rather than kicking a recurring problem down the road by replacing pegs.

Don’t forget however, that the lines Fred mentioned were once totally unsuitable for a VD leader until their character was softened by the addition of pegs. There’s an argument for restoration to their pristine state.

Intrigued by your Widdop Route. All I can think of is Artificial Route and if that's 4a I am your proverbial monkey's relative.

But maybe the chippers have enhanced it since the 70s.

It's many years since I've done it but unusually amongst my climbing circle I always rated Bottle Buttress.  The description here suggests there are now two pegs, one each on pitches 2 and 3; there used only to be the latter and it's easy to see why that's there.  Unless pitch 2 has changed - always possible, and it's been a good while since I was there - then I can't see why a peg or other fixed protection would be needed.  If you can cope with the loose choss on the first pitch there should be no terrors on the second.

The peg on the third pitch is a different kettle of fish.  It's well placed and makes a difference to a nervous second (and even more of one to one that falls off).  From memory, I can't recall a way of using other gear to back that up.  Not having that peg there would make no difference to the technical grade (obviously) but a significant difference to the adjectival one, and it would become the sort of route that could become an accident black spot.  I'd be for keeping it and replacing it with another peg when needed.

T.

These routes were first done by a Leader placing pegs as he went. They were never unprotected solos. Restoring such routes to their original state would mean each team placing and removing pegs as they go - such actions lead to the steady degradation of the rock and are no longer accepted in British rock climbing outside of Mountaineering routes in Winter.

Sorry Tom... I muddled the routes ....trying  to remember where it was now. I backed off Artificial Route... too scary. I also had an almighty battle with the chimney to the right (and suggested an upgrade which Im glad to see happened).

I'm relaxed about what areas decide if like-for-like isn't possible or sensible on the individual cases. What I think is wrong is treating different grades differently. If something with pegs is established and popular it's character should be preserved if possible, whatever the grade. In fact it's arguable that that can be, in some cases, more important for lower grade routes, given many more people can climb them.

The words 'rely' and 'reliance' crop up a lot in this topic.  I don't think reliance is wise when it comes to pegs.  They're handy for navigation (especially at Wintour's), and give some degree of comfort - but as a full cover safety blanket - absolutely not.  Much the same as a 'good runner placement' ain't necessarily so.  So any peg gets a back up, whether or not it looks like it needs it.  Paradoxically, I did fall quite a way onto a peg at Wintour's a year or so ago; a nice, new, shiny replacement programme one.  The shoddy small cam in a small crack failed first without trying very hard, but the peg did sterling work and stopped me.

But if a peg is all that there is, then we're off to the races and place your bets please - odds offered on both climber and peg.  A bolt on the other hand takes the sport away, so to speak.

I think the thing I'm failing to understand is why they need to remain accessible to VD leaders just because they were climbed at VD to begin with?

The principle doesn't seem to apply more widely, for example when a hold falls off a route or a crucial clean gear placement ceases to exist or ceases to be the bomber placement it once was, and the VD suddenly has a 5a crux or is unprotectable at the crux.

I agree.

Sorry if my meaning wasn’t clear. Steve pointed out that due to the deterioration of the pegs, the character of the routes has changed, putting them out of the range of a VDiff leader.

My point is that prior to being equipped with pegs (however placed) these bits of rock were out of the range of a VDiff leader, so putting pegs in again doesn’t restore them to their true original state, but the subsequent, equipped one.

I think It’s a distinction which should be acknowledged when deciding what to do, as there are clearly arguments for an against reequipping. ie if you’re going to manufacture something, acknowledge it. 

As an aside, I saw a near miss today when a leader pulled a hefty chunk off a lower grade sport route which nearly hit her belayer. That could have been catastrophic. It happened because the line went through poor quality rock. Some of the first ascentionist names of that and neighbouring routes are those of very experienced climbers. I find it totally baffling that anyone, let alone someone with experience, would bolt lines with potentially unstable rock. There are a lot like this in the Peak, which precisely because of the dearth of good lower grade routes, are likely to appeal to climbers without the experience to judge shrewdly how safe they are, or aren’t, to climb. I fear someone is going to get killed as a result.

Whilst I‘m generally against seeing bolts anywhere near trad routes, if there’s a dearth of good, safe lower grade routes at WL, do I wonder if replacing the pegs with bolts might be the best solution. Better for essential fixed gear on easier routes to be reliable imo

However, I’m not local and only climbed there once, so the solution is for you guys, not me. If there’s a consensus to maintain safely equipped routes for lower grade leaders at WL, go for it.

Just don’t get me started on (peg)bolts on Gogarth, thanks

My position on such potentially loose Peak 'sport' routes is they need a trad grade and a sport grade (or some other equivalent form of notification) to indicate they are not actually sports routes in the normal sense of the word... with warnings in guidebook introductions and crag introductions that less experienced climbers should avoid them. Rock quality does change over time, so I wouldn't acuse all FAs, of such routes, where bits of rock fall off (or sometimes even bits with a bolt in them!?), of dubious bolting, but some seem to me obvious poor choices. Worse than that, some climbers actually complained when the BMC very sensibly debolted some routes at Horseshoe with placements in intrinsically fractured rock. I'd add that Phil made the important point earlier this year (based on walking the tops with an expert) that some whole walls with bolted routes are in the process of slowly detaching themselves.

I just think we need to be much more honest about the nature of such routes, to climbers coming to these quarries for the first time.

They don't 'need' to, I see it as a case-by-case matter of community choice to potentially restore a worthwhile experience that has been enjoyed by many.

The principle does apply more widely for much loved climbs: broken holds get sika'd back on;  pegs get replaced like-for-like, or sometimes with a bolt; an aid move might become acceptable.

Yeah, I get that, and it could seem like a reasonable compromise. And yes, I get the argument that routes may deteriorate over time - but imo generally not much on inland UK crags if the rock is sound to start with.

Ultimately, I disagree with you. The rockfall is because the rock quality was poor from the beginning.

Bolted lines are an act of creation and an invitation to others to climb. The bolters of poor rock have a moral responsibility because by creating a product, they are inviting climbers, who may well lack the experience to form good judgments, to put themselves in danger.

Poor rock is fine to climb for the bold (Red Wall? The Lleyn?) but should not be bolted for sport, even with caveats to warn the unwary.

It is going to result in life changing injuries.

How do I as a bolter know how poor someone else's judgement is? It's a meaningless comment.

Jim, that’s a daft (or wilful?) comment. No one’s suggesting a Hilti gives you omniscience. What I’m saying - quite obviously- is that you shouldn’t bolt dodgy rock. Period.

I almost elaborated in that post that, yes, I understand that holds do get glued back on sometimes, but it doesn't seem common to me. It especially seems uncommon at the lower end of the grade scale, as opposed to the crucial flake on some historically important E-flavoured route.

I'd hope that no one is banging in a peg (or bolt!) to replace a crucial nut or cam placement that is no longer, which is what I was meaning.

Ultimately my personal viewpoint is that, in trad climbing, we should meet the rock where it is and step up to the challenge that it presents as-is. I'm not arguing for the wholesale removal of historic pegs, but once they deteriorate I'd personally like to see them not replaced. Certainly not replaced by bolts, which are of a totally different character to what they would be replacing. If that means that some routes are no longer climbable pending a future mentalist to have a go without the gear, so be it.

One may climb it just "because it's there", but it being there doesn't mean it must be climbable.

An opinion I respect but it's not mine, nor in my experience in any majority. I'd go further, I see sensible compromise, that's open to the community,  as the best way of preserving what is special about UK trad.  

I go to somewhere like Red Rocks NV and see unnecessary bolts turning PG- moves into U moves on world class trad 'moderates' and it depresses me.... I think that's where we end up if we try and force feed an ultra traditionalist view: as losing the support of the majority allows reckless bolters more opportunity.

I agree with your first paragraph but it sort of contradicts your second. It's really not always poor from the beginning. I've climbed enough lower grade popular limestone trad over three and a half decades to recognise that: some holds often do become loose over time.

In any case, how do we stop people who don't think about moral responsibility and bolt genuinely inappropriate routes? The BMC removed bolts at Horseshoe partly for safety of climbers but also because it owned the crag. A more widespread action could open up liability (why did 'they' miss the route that killed someone?). Removing dodgy bolts/old pegs as individuals is a mammoth task.

In contrast, informing climbers on the gradations of foolishness of trusting fixed gear is vital. I think on problematic Peak quarry routes that look like sport climbs, but have too much risk to be regarded as that, it behoves us to make that risk clearer than we currently do.

It’s not the odd loosening block that’s an issue but the siting of routes on poor rock. Sooner or later, people are going to get hurt.

We can’t, but we can highlight the issue and hope people think again.

But who decides what's dodgy rock? I'm an old Swanage climber so have a good judgement of what's safe BY MY STANDARDS and I've never fallen from loose rock. So when I'm bolting that's what I consider safe. I've no idea about others failings, inexperience or downright incompetence.

I thought the Bonatti Pillar was okay as obviously did Walter but it still fell down. Outdoor sport routes it's buyer beware as it always has been and always will.

I doubt anyone will get this far as it's already a threadnaught, but here's my tuppence anyway:

1) I find it very hard to think of a vdif where you could fall without it being extremely nasty - the low angle and number of ledges that are typical mean that even if you placed overhead gear every single move, you'd still likely hurt yourself in a fall due to slack in the system and rope stretch alone.

2) Sport climbing has a single individual grade, for difficulty alone. Trad climbing is fundamentally different, the two grades take a lot of things into account and one of the crucial things there is the quality of protection and consequences of a fall. Replacing a crap peg (and let's be clear - some pegs might have been good but others will have been absolute garbage even in the moment in which they were placed) is really no different to putting a bolt in the middle of a long runout. Trad climbing in the UK offers climbers every level of risk between absolute solo and bombproof protection every 50cm. There are lots of people who enjoy the challenge of dangerous routes and it would be a shame to spoil these experiences in pursuit of making every route safe. There are masses and masses of trad routes that are very safe, there is really no need to artificially make more of them very safe.

3) Don't assume that a peg can't be judged just because you cannot judge it or because others have judged one and been wrong. While there is certainly a level of uncertainty (again we are talking about trad climbing, not sport climbing or tiddlywinks), old pegs can be reasonably judged by several factors, including how much they move, how far into the rock they have been driven, what angle they are relative to gravity, how long ago they were placed, who the first ascensionist was, how thick the metal originally was, how rusty they are and perhaps whether other people recently have mentioned falling or resting on them.

4) Would you think it was acceptable for someone who likes bold routes to fill several vital gear placements with sikaflex on a hard route because they wanted to make it bolder? Because, as ridiculous as it sounds, this is the mirror approach to what you are suggesting.

5) While not making any assumptions about whether this is the case at Wintours (I've never climbed there), there are lots of routes where more modern gear approaches such as microwires, bad slings tensioned down, hooks, ball nuts and various other pieces of non-standard gear can be used to adequately protect a route where pegs might have been placed in the past. This is a method of moving with the times that is a lot more in keeping with the ethos of trad climbing than "just add more bolts".

6) If you feel like the priority is to replace a peg with something that you can judge, remove the old peg and climb with your own pegs up the route and HAND PLACE them where the old peg was located. Looking back over news articles about hard new routes, you will find that hand-placed pegs are sometimes used and this will enable you to accurately judge the quality of the peg when you are climbing (obviously they are removed by the second).

7) If you fundamentally just want to climb what looks like a lovely piece of rock but are too afraid of the protection, there is always the option of setting up a toprope and climbing it without gear.

It's vaguely civil. I feel strongly about the dumbing down of climbing, so it's not going to be completely civil. (also, if it was, it probably wouldn't be UKC!)

It’s difficult to read tone on the internet, but you appear to take my comments as a personal attack. They’re not. I have no knowledge of what you’ve equipped and judging by the diligence you apply to discussing equipment, I’d imagine your routes would be carefully assessed and equipped.

That is irrelevant to the poorly conceived bolting on questionable rock which exists in the uk. It provide mid-grade opportunities which would otherwise be unavailable to climbers who operate at that level and who are probably in the majority, but the unfortunate fact is that uk limestone has limited sound rock for sport climbing at lower levels and bolting unsafe venues isn’t going to change that reality.

If you have a Hilti in your hand, you do - which is why it’s important to think very carefully about what routes are being created.

Re Bonatti and the Dru, subject to the impact of climate change at 3000m: it’s irrelevant to UK limestone quarries and gorges. He exercised his best judgment. Their routes show that some UK equippers don’t, and that’s a shame.

That’s just reality - nothing will ever change that. It does nothing to absolve personal responsibility though. If it’s a trad route, you can choose to follow the same path as the first ascentionist or not, it’s just a piece of rock. If it’s a sport route, you are the consumer of a product created for you. Too many of these are dangerous because the zeal of the equipper has led them to bolt on unsound rock.

The routes which are under discussion at Wintours were originally climbed in the era when placing pegs on lead - with the second removing them - was perfectly normal.

This was of course partly down to the lack of other protection - we were after all drilling out engineering nuts and putting them on wire or cord in those days.

As such, these routes being graded in the lower categories was perfectly normal. For that matter the climbing is in the lower technical grade, being at 3A to 4A tops (for the odd move) mostly.

The cracks which have been used for the existing pegs are somewhat thin and generally parallel rather than being able to safely take even the thinnest wires. I have found micros to be of some (moral) use there on occasion, and a 00 Wild Country Cam proved quite good  - but only in a horizontal crack, and I did only have the one.

As such, the idea that anyone would, in todays ethical climate, climb these routes using wires/cams only is patently absurd, as someone would have to set off with an entire climbing clubs micro wires and cams (and a couple of slings for the trees), on what is technically a 3A, albeit one that is up to 300 feet in length.

Thanks for the summary Fred, it’s broadly what I understood about the place.

Was your last paragraph a response to something I wrote? It’s pretty out of kilter with what I said about protecting routes in the lower grades at venues like WL. In any case, WL is not a crag of huge national significance, so I’d say it’s more a matter for local climbers - which I’m not.

I would tend to agree with the above. I could be wrong but is someone really going to bolt something which is falling down? Also, as you say, where does one draw the line? There must be countless examples of routes which were hugely dangerous and required heavy cleaning prior to them being climbed, but once this stuff was removed, gave objectively safe and really good quality routes. 

On such routes I agree, but there are plenty of quarry sport routes that are not like that and there are levels of grey in between.

I agree and an easy way to do that exists. Which is why I think all new guidebooks and all public logbooks should add something to the sport grade on any suspect route. I don't care what it is but I see the need as urgent given the increasing risk of inexperienced climbers hurting themselves due to lack of awareness (and the ever present lower level of risk from the experienced, through complacency ... Dill's  YOSAR "staying alive" analysis solidified evidenced concerns* around poor practice I witnessed from those who should know better).

I agree with your points. To be clear, I’m not saying that all lower grade sport routes are dodgy, just that some are, when we should be aiming for none.
John Dill’s report is new to me, so thanks for the pointer. It’s a bit off topic, but here’s the link for those interested.

http://dev.supertopo.com/topos/yosemite/stayalive.pdf 

It really needs an update... I wonder if things changed given the levels of tragic complacency it illustrated.

There is the point, you think all bolted routes are sport routes and also should achieve a level of safety/reliability equal to indoor gym routes. A great number of developers aren't working with that mindset, they know the rock deteriorates, the equipment is neither controlled or regularly checked and importantly the bolts are often placed to merely allow the climber to do the route without mobile protection. Anyone who goes on an outdoor sport route with the mindset it is "safe" is an accident waiting to happen.

Outdoor sport routes are an intermediate step between indoor gyms where everything is controlled and adventure climbing where nothing is, whether people make the steps is their choice but to learn to climb loose rock on bolted routes is easier than going straight in at the deep end, when I bolt routes I clean them sufficient for my needs and for climbers with a modicum of intelligence and discretion, not for every 6b newbie straight out of the gym and that is common attitude amongst the more prolific developers whether you like it or not.

I sat one day in the sun watching a chaotic group of somewhat inexperienced climbers flailing on a newish route with an ex-president of the BMC (who bolted it) as the strong youth flew off with monotonous regularity, " the bumblers are cleaning it nicely" was his casual comment. That's reality. If you want it differently then get out and get cleaning routes.

Hi Jim,

I’ve read some of the things you have written and they are informative and considered, so it’s surprising to read

which shows some arrogance in pretending to know what I think better than I do. As I did not write those things, it’s a bit silly to assume them.

Anyway. You have your views on what it’s appropriate to bolt; I have mine. We differ.

It was a response to elements of both what you and henwardian posted.

Wintours could be regarded as being of national importance in one respect, being, along with Avon and Cheddar Gorges, the only inland true multi-pitch climbing areas  outside of the mountains.

Of these, Wintours has the better* collection of lower grade routes amongst them.

*At least in my opinion that is, having climbed at all 3 areas.

Obviously the Lake District does have a number of multi-pitch routes, but for the majority of the English population, climbing them means a full weekend away rather than a day trip, and usually a long walk in and out - which means an increase in stress to someone leading V Diff etc..

I do think however that local climbers must "bite the bullet" and either ensure that regular replacement of all the pegs is carried out - which would mean gradual deterioration of the placements - or else a series of sympathetic placements for bolts within reach of the existing peg placements wherever a wire/cam cannot be used instead. And I do not believe that people should be expected to carry half a dozen 00 Cams plus two or three sets of micros with their miniscule breaking strain, as some of these placements still require a fair runout afterwards even now - Bottle Buttress being the biggest culprit here on the final pitch.

Sorry, didn’t mean to appear sniffy about the crag. I was thinking  ‘National importance’ in the context of Gogarth or Scafell for example.

Perhaps ironically, I’d agree more with a consensus led decision for limited bolts on these much easier lines than retro bolting of harder ones with deteriorating pegs. But as said, it’s a matter for local climbers to resolve.

Routes don't always have to be preserved at their grade.  I would have loved to have done Eroica before the peg was was lost, but accept the fact that its now a harder route.  The multiple pegs on Dyer Straits were removed to create a modern day classic in the Walk of Life.

So I don't accept that "to preserve this route for future climbers it is reasonable to replace these pegs for bolts".  The nature of routes change - sometimes harder, sometimes easier but they don't stay the same if the nature of the protection changes.

Let's be realistic, Fred's lower grade pegged routes at Wintours won't become modern day bold classics. The fate of such routes needs to be decided in the local area, case-by-case (some might be left alone and slowly fade into obscurity, some might get new fixed gear and maintain traffic).