UKC

I climbed Seven Deadly Sins on the Papacy Buttress on Saturday - my first visit to Harpur Hill. I have the 2004 Rockfax "Northern Limestone" and took the line marked in that. An excellent, classic and correctly graded HVS 5a but sporting two bolts (which I clipped) to protect the vertical section before the traverse right. Checking the UKC logbook I see that most people take a more direct and unbolted line which is marked on the latest Rockfax guide, and most comments refer to this being considerably harder than 5a.  It seems that the same line is marked in the current BMC guide (which I don't have).

I was a little suspicious so I checked my 1987 BMC Peak Limestone "Stoney" guide. It's clear that the original trad line is the one that I climbed, the one which now has two newish bolts, not the revised unbolted line in the latest guides. 

Is what has happened here that a new sport route has "taken" a section of Seven Deadly Sins and someone has decided that it's OK to re-route the classic trad climb (at a higher grade) to accommodate this?

I don't have a strong view on this at this venue. Harpur Hill is clearly a sport climbing crag. All the other routes I climbed were sport, including the excellent Coral Seas. But the current Rockfax guide cites the Papacy Buttress as an good example of how adjacent Sport and Trad climbs can coexist. If a classic trad climb has had to be re-routed to accommodate a sport climb, then I would tend to disagree. 

Perhaps someone with greater knowledge can enlighten me?

Martin

I took a virtual visit to Stoney Middleton garage buttress using the UKC logbook and I see that there are now a lot of sports climbs squeezed somehow between the existing trad climbs.  Didn't Little Plum used to be a trad line once upon a time?

Stoney has a reputation for polished horrors.  Maybe it's improved by adding a bolted line described as "A poor filler in with one desperate move. © Rockfax" with the help of a glued undercut.

I doubt any one person "decided" to re-route the trad line. It's likely that climbers arrived at the new bolts and thought, "Oh, I must head straight up here, you don't get bolts on trad".

It could also be that you're looking at two separate guidebooks, published nearly two decades apart by different organisations. Rockfax aren't exactly famous for the accuracy of the lines on their topos (sorry, Alan, don't ban or email me again, but it's true. See threads passim ad nauseum). Presumably the Rockfax author drew the line on the topo to avoid the bolts and thus began sending everyone unwittingly the wrong way.

As to the click-bait thread title, my view of this is that trad and sport co-exist together extremely well in places where the rock quality is actually good enough for trad climbing (Pembroke, High Tor, Malham). It's places like Gordale where people want to climb routes like Cave Route Right-Hand but aren't going to have any fun running it out above gear in snappy rock - then bolts start to creep in. Once stuff becomes sparsely bolted with a few trad placements required, they sit in a bit of an unpopular no-man's land. My general view is that for most of these things you might as well just get them bolted (i.e. Troller's Gill - [quote from Paul Clarke: "the worst quality rock I've ever drilled into. Looks fine on the surface; honeycomb crud underneath] look how good the place is now!).

I'm not saying that we should carry out wholesale bolting on all crags with sub-excellent rock, but it's certain that the two disciplined can and do co-exist very well. Malham is a very good example: the rock quality on the right wing is stellar and very given to trad. Same for the top tier where Swift Attack is. It has stayed trad. The Catwalk and other areas with snappy rock have gone sport and are much better for it.

Little Plum was an aid route that required bolts.

Nothing on GG's website - http://www.sportsclimbs.co.uk/mainpages/peak/Harpur%20Hill%20Papacy%20Secto...

Sounds to me that somebody has decided the route could do with a direct variant on the crux, and given the lack of trad gear available at that point has added a couple of bolts. 

Then people wishing to climb the trad route have been lured onto the direct by the shiny things. Seven Deadly Sins hasn't been re-routed as such, and can still be climbed as a trad route (presumably at HVS 5a, but I wouldn't bet on it).

If that is the case I'll be happy to update the UKC database accordingly.  

I remember being confused about the line for this route a few months ago. I followed the line in the most recent Peak Limestone North, which was definitely harder than HVS 5a. I suspect, though, that the explanation is confusion rather than malicious line theft. Hanlon's Razor applies here, I think. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

Thanks Chris

The link to Gary Gibson's website is helpful, but I don't think it confirms what you say. The sport route in question is Insincerely. The line, clearly marked on the topo, coincides exactly with the original line of Seven Deadly Sins for a short section. Two bolts on Insincerely now detract from the value of Seven Deadly Sins as a purely trad route - though it's still a good route - wandering but finding the easiest way up the buttress.  I think there would be trad gear to protect the coinciding section if needed, but I clipped the bolts.

The "new" line of Seven Deadly Sins is more direct but harder (according to the majority of recent logbook posts). It doesn't have bolts. You've misunderstood, I think, when you suggest that the bolts were added to compensate for a lack of gear on this direct line. The bolts have been placed on the original, easier, line to create the sport route Insincerely.

In reply to Will Hunt, the original line of Seven Deadly Sins is described in the 1987 BMC Stoney guide, but there's no topo. This is the same line as that clearly marked in the Rockfax 2004 Northern Limestone guide which exactly corresponds to the BMC description (the traverse right and the resultant "stacks of rope drag" are the key here). Insincerely is not included in the 2004 Rockfax guide. The 2012 Rockfax Peak Limestone guide shows the revised direct line for Seven Deadly Sins and includes Insincerely. So the change is not between "two guidebooks published nearly two decades (actually 25 years) apart by different organisations". It's between two guidebooks published 8 years apart both by Rockfax and by the same authors (except for Mark Glaister's omission from the 2012 team). I expect Chris or Alan will know why the line was changed from one Rockfax edition to the next.

As I said in the OP, I don't think it's a big issue at Harpur Hill, though it may be that Seven Deadly Sins should have been upgraded to reflect the difficulty of the new more direct line. But in general I don't think an existing and worthwhile trad route should be re-routed, by a harder line, to accommodate the bolting of a new sport route, especially when this is then pointed out as an example of trad and sport happily co-existing.

Martin

I think you'll find Cave Route Right is now fully bolted and all the better for it. 

Not much harder than Western Front! 

Haha!!

No, I don't think the two can happily co-exist. Sooner or later the bolting will spread to include most or all the trad routes.

For instance at Robin Proctor's Scar, the two trad routes Clint and Grike have been effectively retrobolted by a poor sports route mid way between the two. Neither route particularly good (though better than the new bolted line), but notable as Pete Livesey's first new routes.

And then there's Giggleswick South, where the bolts are gradually spreading onto previously trad-only buttresses.

Whether any of this matters of course is a matter of opinion.

OK, still trying to work this out so forgive me

Using GG's topo as reference

You say that SDS originally went left (at approx 1/3 height ?), followed the line now marked as Insincerely and then went back right (presumably at approx 2/3 height). And that people following the marked line (and avoiding the bolts, presuming them to be off route) find themselves on something harder than HVS 5a. 

Now between SDS and Insincerely is another trad route - Sin City E1 5b, so presumably SDS crosses that one twice.

If that is correct, then I think we can see the problem that guidebook authors face, as well as the issue of co-existence.

We can't expect the authors to check every route for every edition of the guide, but it is possible that the author has climbed it and decided the more direct approach is logical - you do mention an issue with rope drag. Or maybe the original description (with no topo) was a bit confusing.

But it's also the case that sports routes tend to be more direct lines and trad routes more likely to weave around, partly because of the gear, but partly because they may have been the first route up the buttress and therefore taking the line of least resistence. Which can leave a lot of unclimbed and challenging rock which can't be climbed unless the purity of the trad route is compromised.

So maybe the best way of co-existence, as well as clarity in the guidebook, is to have the two lines running parallel to each other rather than one weaving all over the place ?

Aye, I used that specific route as the example because it did get occasional traffic each year, but it was never going to be all that popular with having to take the odd bit of trad gear up. (Western Front is clearly 8a though).

Simon, for your two examples, Robin Proctor's hasn't really got the rock to make it a class trad venue. Snappy. The bedding planes have been turned through 90 degrees and it's all a bit dodgy - nice for an easy sport venue though. The retrobolting you've described sounds like a poor job has been made of it, perhaps they should have just retroed the trad routes themselves and left it at that. A few crags have had their first wave of sport development and are now going through the second wave where some of the original sport developers are slotting routes between the ones they've already done - which generally turns good obvious lines into pseudo-eliminates. Not a big fan of that myself.

Gigg South - There's an upper tier to Gigg South with really good quality rock and it's all trad, and I expect it to remain so. The lower tier is probably Yorkshire's most popular sport venue for the sub-7 climber and I've never ever seen anyone trad climb there. I can't even name one trad route that's a stand out gem. Probably best get it all bolted...

On the other hand, at Gigg North, you've got the Ivy Buttress which has two good quality trad routes that are on bomber rock - Ivy Buttress and Acid Test. The other routes with the wobbly bits have been turned into decent sport climbs. This has been done so as not to affect the neighbouring trad routes.

I'm not sure whether you're saying that no trad routes should be retroed, which is a different argument entirely (and one which was concluded some decades ago). The question is, can the two disciplines co-exist side by side. I'm not saying that they always do co-exist peacefully, due to the inconsiderate actions of some bolters, but there are definite examples where the two sit alongside each other perfectly well. To say that "sooner or later the bolting will spread to include most or all the trad routes" is bollocks. They were saying it in the 80s and it never came to pass.

Hi Chris

Yes, SDS originally went diagonally left at one third height up the slabby terrain to join what is now Insincere at the obvious break. It then coincided with Insincere till handholds in the next break and then traversed horizontally right (a highlight of the route IMO) to rejoin the line marked on GG's topo. This is the line I climbed last Saturday, described in the BMC 1987 Stoney guide (where it's the sole line on the buttress) and shown in the topo in the 2004 Rockfax guide (which also has Coral Seas and Avarice Allsorts. I didn't have the latest Rockfax or BMC guides with me.

Sin City is presumably quite recent and looks like it could be a good trad eliminate on SDS except that its trad nature must be greatly compromised by proximity to Insecure.

If Insecure post-dates Sin City as well as SDS then I would question whether it should have been bolted as its bolts must compromise the trad nature of nearly half of Sin City as well as a key section of SDS.

Actually I would not have much objection if the bolting of Insecure was agreed by local climbers, Although, if unbolted, SDS would be well worth it's two stars, the buttress is not IMO of national significance. But the honest approach would have been to dedicate the whole buttress as a sport venue rather than, as the current Rockfax suggests, praise it as a venue where Trad and Sport happily coexist.

Another, probably controversial, alternative would have been to save the whole Papacy Buttress as a trad venue. I also climbed Coral Seas on Saturday which I think would have adequate trad protection (though I didn't try to place it). 

Martin

Regarding Stoney,Garage Buttress,one of the bolt lower offs has a 2 bolt belay in an obviously cracked block.  At Water Cum Jolly,some person unknown has removed the first bolt hanger on the retrobolted Bomb is Coming.That move  to the  second bolt or pegs is now  de facto trad.I prefer that  hanger to be replaced.Size 2 Camalots protect otherwise,and they are not so great. Of course bolts  infringe on trad routes.Direct starts and finishes give the excuse to put in  bolts where none were necessary before.Woodward's serious route Ninth Life being a case in point.Worse,trad projects have been chipped,bolted and climbed.I watched one Lancashire''activist'' hacking a huge jug on  a project that I had minimally bolted,at Cheedale.I had already done that move without the hacked hold.A very rainy day,so I guess he thought he would be unobserved.I did say to him when I went on my project ''This hold wasn't here last week.''He did look a tad uncomfortable.Bolting would be more acceptable if people had respect for the crag,and leave routes they can't do for those who can.

FTFY

For some reason, Paul Mitchell has sent me an email and I wouldn't want anyone to miss out on it, so here goes:

"Hi Will,

    t o have the foggiest idea of the history trad and bolts in the U K I
would say you need to be 50+ years old.You don't seem to be in that
category. regards,Mitch"

You're right, Paul. I'm under 50. Please accept my apologies for expressing a view, I retract everything I said.

I'd also like to publically state that I don't have the foggiest about anything that went on before early May 1989. I'd like to call upon any and all historians out there to put their snake oil away, stop with the hokum, and just admit once and for all that they don't have the foggiest about any events which they did not personally experience.

Thanks.

O k Will,you know  very little about the 1980's.Knowledge is one thing and opinion is often not connected to it.I was actually there when the mayhem of hold chipping and overbolting started.

This thread isn't about hold chipping, Paul.

"I'm not sure whether you're saying that no trad routes should be retroed, which is a different argument entirely (and one which was concluded some decades ago)."

What exactly are you referring to here?

I can't speak to the specific example given, but to the question in general...

Sport and trad already co-exist pretty successfully at absolutely loads of crags around the country. Pen Trwyn, Castell y Gwynt, Goat Crag, Upper Cave, Tunnel Wall, High Tor, Chee Tor, Malham...list goes on. All these have routes that remain popular in both styles.

The idea that there is even a bright line between sport and trad is one of the oddest fictions in British climbing lore - we have literally hundreds of hybrid routes, mostly but not exclusively on limestone and slate.

Where the marriage is most successful is where the trad routes are of high enough quality that they remain popular - pretty much what Will Hunt said, even though he is too young to know anything about anything.

I'd argue they coexist only "pretty successfully" at places like High Tor, given that bolts can be reached and clipped from *** VS.  Its not a given that coexistence is going to be easy- vigilance is still needed

I think there's a difference between a "hybrid" route that  was created as a hybrid by the first ascensionist in order to make justifiable a particularly bold section (many on slate fall into this category I believe), and a "hybrid" route that was created as a pure trad route with adequate trad protection but then becomes hybrid due to the encroachment of a sport route whose bolts are easily clipped from the trad line.

Seven Deadly Sins is in the second category. Not only has the creation of the sport route "Insincerely" inserted two bolts into an excellent and adequately protected climb that was previously entirely trad, but guidebook writers have then re-routed the trad line to avoid the bolts making the line harder and IMO less interesting. I wouldn't say this is co-existence - it's compromising one style for the benefit of the other. One could argue that Insincerely should have been created as a hybrid line omitting the bolts where it coincides with Seven Deadly Sins.

As I've said above the honest thing to do here would be to accept that all of Harpur Hill is now a sport venue rather than pretend that Papacy Buttress is a good example of both styles co-existing. I don't think it is, although presumably Alan James or Chris Craggs (or indeed Gary Gibson) could enlighten us as to why Seven Deadly Sins was re-routed in the current guides.

Martin

That's fair enough, I was responding more to your thread title than the case in point.

I would add, more as a thought than in argument with what you've said, that I don't think the FA's decisions are sacrosanct - the idea of 'ownership' of a route just because you climbed that bit of rock first is silly. Which is not to say I think the FA's views should not be respected, but it should be part of a grown-up conversation and not necessarily the final word.

If a guidebook re-routes a climb (when compared to a previous guidebook), then I think the guidebook writers have a responsibility to point out that the line has changed, why it's changed, and also to make sure they get the new grade right. They should probably also detail the original line (unless it's fallen down).

For SDS, I wonder if it's been straightened out because most people visiting HH will have a single sports rope and the original line looks like it would give rather a lot of rope drag unless you used double ropes.

Really? Which one?

<reaches for the notepad with the "potential soft touches to flatter the not particularly good climber" list in it.>

I recently had the pleasure of visiting the Dolomites for a week of stupendous climbing. The trad routes out there feature some bolts as well. I wouldn't say they detract from the climbing and often seem to be placed where the run outs would be rediculous for the difficulty.They seem pretty sporting with the bolts and turn what would be a certain death fall from the crux of an HS in to a scary whipper instead. They also bolt a lot of belays as well which was fine with me.

At Cheddar, a lot of trad routes have bolt lower offs and hundreds of trad routes with next to no gear have been bolted. Most of them were very, very rarely climbed before they were bolted.

We're speculating I think as to the reason SDS was re-routed. Presumably Chris Craggs and Alan James know the reason and if they read this thread I hope they will comment.

Actually I was attracted to Harpur hill last Saturday by the presence of a 2* trad route at my grade and turned up with double ropes which I duly used on the sport routes as well (a real give-away when a traddie climbs sport).

Martin

I worked on the last two Peak Lime Rockfaxs, (2004 & 2012) but can't recall when or why it got changed.

I did the route back in the 1980s and remember a long rightward traverse and horrendous issues with rope-drag - so maybe that has something to do with it!

If you are there again The Seven Deadly Virtues (E1 5b) and El Camino Real (E1 5b) are both really excellent. We finished up the last three bolts of Full Frontal to avoid topping out.

Sorry not to be more helpful,

Chris

Skylight presumably. I don't remember any bolts when I last climbed it a few years ago. But checking the UKC logbook reveals that the adjacent originally trad route Plight of the Rich has been retro-bolted recently. So this will be it.

Presumably the retro-bolting was done with the consent of the first ascensionist of Plight of the Rich (G Gibson 1987). But was the first ascensionist of Skylight consulted (J Brown 1957)?

As someone above has commented, perhaps the views of the first ascensionist are less relevant as time passes - they don't own the rock. Perhaps retro-bolting existing trad routes, or establishing new sport routes that compromise the nature of adjacent trad routes, should follow guidelines as follows (which mirror one definition of how stars are awarded). For a 1* trad route - get the consensus of local activists. For a 2* trad route get an area consensus eg through an Area BMC meeting. For a 3* trad route - get a national consensus. For an un-starred trad route - just do it.

I hasten to add that I'm recommending this only for crags where bolting is already accepted - not Stanage!

Martin

Thanks Chris. 

It's still a mystery then. Although is it possible you followed Gary Gibson's lead (on his web-page linked above)? Did Gary bolt Insincerely?

PS. I think Gary has come in for more than his deserved share of stick over the years. I would criticise him if he did this, and if he was responsible for retro-bolting Plight of the Rich (see above). But he gets lots of praise from me for his pioneering of trad climbs I've enjoyed such as Hawkwing (Roaches) and Wishful Thinking (Pembroke), and especially stripping the ivy at Shorncliffe to reveal The Laughing Cavaliers and it's neighbours. That really was a fine effort!

Thanks for your recommendations. Since a back operation I'm embarking with some apprehension on E1's these days, and at 67 may not regain the confidence I had at the grade a few years ago - though I will try.

I didn't find the rope drag on the original line of Seven Deadly Sins too bad on Saturday - double ropes and some beta to that effect helped of course. But I failed to find a stake on top to belay to so had to make do with placements in the rock near the top-out (a thread, a bollard and two nuts).

Martin

A few issues touched on there. I don't think we should impose the UK trad ethic in the Dolomites but I, and others for sure, do value it at home. I've climbed in the Dolomites too and I go there for what you get - adventurous climbing with a bit of drilled/hammered gear to keep the adventure within bounds. 

Your suggestion that because a climb is very rarely climbed it's OK to bolt is quite controversial I would suggest. There's an certain E9 in Wales that I watched receive (I think) it's 8th ascent in 33 years this summer. As a sport climb it might receive that number every month (given decent weather).

Martin

I was one of the people who failed on SDS by the way. I note my logbook says that I followed the line in the Rockfax very closely and fell some way of the presumed crux. I'm not very good so failing on HVSs isn't unheard of BUT I had just onsighted Coral Sea with no problems at all, so its harder than that at least if you follow the line in the book.

I don't want to tell Chris why the line in the book is as it is, but surely going back there to take photos, noting where the bolted lines now go and then picking a line between the bolted lines and thinking "Hmmm, I guess that's where SDS must go then..." is a strong possibility?

Thanks Toby

I've just gone back to the UKC logbook page for Seven Deadly Sins and found this comment in 2010 from "lrandall"

"Really enjoyable route. Followed the topo in RockFax's Northern Limestone (the 2004 Rockfax), which felt very soft for the grade (VS 5a at a push, but more like VS 4c). Chatting to Gary Gibson it seems the original route took a more direct line, which certainly looks more sustained. Well worth the stars though."

So it looks as if Gary may not have appreciated he was retro-bolting a section of SDS (if indeed it was Gary who put up Insincere). But the description of SDS in my 1987 BMC guide is clearly of the line in the 2004 Rockfax. It refers to a "long traverse right".  The "new" line has no significant traverse right. 

Is it possible that the 1987 line is wrong and Gary spoke to the original 1966 ascensionists, messrs Dearman and Toogood? I'm not sure that's likely. Reading the UKC logbook page the confusion has certainly caught a few people out - at least two leader falls.

Martin 

My 1983 edition of Nunny's Peak guide described it as going left, up and then back right. When I did it in 2011 I remember bolts to the left on the arete but none on the line of the route. There may have been a peg on the rightward traverse, this is also mentioned in Nunny.

Thanks. You've reminded me that I have the Nunn guide somewhere but I can't currently locate it. If I remember correctly from last Saturday the peg is still there on the traverse but it needs to be backed up. There's a good nut slot close by.

This confirms I guess that the leftward diversion is the original line.

Martin

Insincerely, looks to be a fairly new route as it's not in the 2015 Peak limestone North guide, which has the direct version of SDS in it, and Sin City from 2006 which is a trad line using a thin crack right of the shallow groove of SDS. Insincerely goes up the groove between the traverses of SDS and now has 2 bolts in it, whereas SDS relied on gear in the break below the groove, so a 2 star HVS has been compromised by the addition of 2 bolts to create a finish for an undistinguished 6b sport route, and SDS has been turned into a poorer, more direct line with an unbalanced crux.

I think the upper bolts of Insincerely should be removed and the original line of SDS reinstated in the guides, with a note that a harder but less good direct finish is possible.

Do the bolts actually detract from the climbing experience in this case? I've not done SDS but I would expect that part of the enjoyment is in following a wandering line at a relatively ok grade that outwits the steepness of the buttress.

Apologies for coming late to this one. You have uncovered a couple of things here.

Firstly, the 2012 Rockfax does have the wrong line for SDS. Me or Chris, but most likely me, made the mistake of adjusting the line based on the Horseshoe to Harper Hill BMC guide of 2004, which came out after our 2004 book which had the correct line. It is also useful information that the stake has gone. Are there other decent belays?

I don't think that route lines should be set in stone though since things do change, sometimes better lines are developed, rock is unearthed, rock falls off, or a better sequence is discovered. This is particularly the case on sport crags where bolts obviously have a role in guiding where people climb. This isn't the case here though and the old trad line is a good one and should endure.

However this is another example of a bigger issue that we have discussed on this forum before. Gary G does some great work but he does put up routes in places that cause confusion. In 2006 Gary added Sin City which was a decent trad line that bisected the old traverse of SDS - not a problem since it was trad. However SDS had already been described by him in his BMC book as the direct version - I don't know why this change was made. This new line left the gap to the left of Sin City which has now been plugged by the sport route Insincerely which has grabbed a bit of the original line of SDS . I don't know if Insincerely is one of Gary's routes but I suspect it is. 

This wouldn't be the first time though that some of Gary's new routes have encroached on existing lines and changed their nature. Earlier this year I made a point of some development on Ravenstor in Dovedale where Gary had added two new routes which very nearly, but didn't quite, retro-bolt two old routes. The thread is here - https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/rocktalk/gary_please_slow_down_and_show_m...

Since that thread Gary has acknowledged one of these retro-boltings by renaming his route to the old name - Tendonitis Sucks (E5 6b) now effectively has a direct start but the route is the same one and better for being bolted. With Jugbit though there are now two bad routes where there is really only one line. I doubt anyone would have objected if Jugbit had been retro-bolted but squeezing in extra lines and bagging a first ascent, instead of tackling the issue of retro-bolting and not getting a first ascent have created a mess here.

To go back to your main question in the thread title: I do still think that trad and sport can co-exist -  there are enduring examples - and it isn't usually retro-bolting existing routes that spoils it. It is the desire to squeeze as many routes as possible out of a single piece of rock and encroach on the existing lines, or borrow sections without fully retro-bolting them, that cause the problems. Personally I would prefer the approach that we leave routes room to breath and retro-bolt them where that might be appropriate, but not in cases like this where SDS is a decent trad route, with a good line. Insincerely is the poor route that shouldn't really have been put up, or done as a trad eliminate instead.

On the guidebook issue, it was my mistake in the 2014 guidebook not to properly look at what was there before and I will now correct it in the master version with two routes - SDS and SDS Direct. 

Alan

Just having a look now at the topo and I see that Gary updated his version in July so it looks like Insincerely (6a+) is a very new route. It hadn't been added to UKC logbook even (I just added it). 

It appears to be an incredibly tight line which must surely have bolts clippable from Sin City (E1 5b) and I suspect it will use many of the same holds. Then the hard pull left providing the difficult bit, although how different this is from (the appropriately named?!)  I'm in the Sin Bin (6a) I don't know. The last bit is the section it has taken from the original line of SDS.

I'll go out and have a look.

Alan

The other question is whether good climbing and Harpur Hill co-exist and, having led Coral Seas  - a supposed classic - and for some reason top-roped 7DS I'd say no! 

You're right, in that the essence of the route is that it weaves around the buttress seeking out the line of least resistance. The moves up the groove from the break are probably the crux of the route, and I remember them feeling tricky and a bit committing. Having bolts there would reduce the adventurous feel of the route and diminish it I think.

Sorry meant Stoney.  I think it's called Evasor from memory 

I really enjoyed Jam Butty Mines Crack (VS 4c)

I disagree there. The four sport routes I did at Harpur Hill last Saturday were I thought quite good examples of Peak District lower grade (5 - 6a) sport. (Yes, a bit of damning with faint praise there I know). Coral Seas is excellent. 

Seven Deadly Sins is an excellent trad route, but only worth it's two stars if you are not put off by the recent encroachment of bolts. 

Martin

Thanks Alan for the comprehensive response. It does perhaps look as if Gary Gibson has overstepped here. Perhaps it's trad routes and Gary's drive to create new routes that don't easily co-exist, rather than trad and sport in general. I appreciate Gary has not had the opportunity to respond though, and I would repeat my thanks to Gary for some of his pioneering trad efforts in the past, especially at Shorncliffe.

SDS and Coral Seas is a good example of adjacent trad and sport lines that seem to co-exist happily. None of the bolts on Coral Seas detract from SDS as a trad line. Coral Seas would itself I think be adequately protectable as a trad line, which is what I would prefer myself, but given that Harpur Hill is generally accepted as a sport venue, and mindful of the relative lack of quality lower/mid grade sport climbing in the Peak, I can't really complain about that. Insincerely, is, as you agree, a different matter.

The belay stake above SDS was still there in August as per Luke 90's logbook entry. But it seems it's way off to the side and I didn't find it. I downclimbed a bit (easy) and belayed below the cliff top. Sling round a rounded block, another sling incorporating a possibly dubious thread, and two well placed nuts in possibly suspect, but I think OK, rock. Plus a good braced stance on a large solid foothold. Taken together I was happy with that, but it's not ideal.

Martin

There are quite a few worthwhile trad lines at Harpur Hill especially if you enjoy crack climbing.

check out -  El Camino Real E1,  Nostalgia E3/4 sustained crack,  Screaming Target E3 technical slab, 

Dog Canute  E1 superb jam crack, Metal Back Crack HVS cracks fingers to jamming, College crack E1, 

Grow Fins E2 bold arete, Luddite Thought Police E3, Cats 23 HVS crack (recently cleaned and LO at top),

Jam Butty Mines VS, Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble both VS, Hey Diddle Diddle E1 jam crack

Coral Seas: contrived start, decent if disintegrating bulge, contrived finish, shyte location .barely worth a star I'm but people seem to like it! 

I suspect the belay stake off to the side is actually for a different route and the one described in the guides is either gone or just buried in the long grass. As you say, it is possible to use gear just below the edge and a braced position, just a bit unnerving given the quality of the rock up there. I was actually rather pleased with my "bombproof" improvised cairn.