UKC

a rope or a wet glacier crossing?

I can think of two straight off:

1. Lagginhorn (if you take the lefthand ridge looking at it from Saas)
2. Matterhorn via Hoernli ridge(if you feel brave)

Any more, or are those two exceptions that prove some sort of rule?

I'm interested to know partly because, of course, this is useful info for those days when you find yourself out on your own in the Alps...

In reply to Tim Chappell: Weissmies from the Almageller hut.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Well, there's the Aiguille Blanche via the Noire S ridge. 'Course, you're stuffed once you get to the top, and I suppose you'd need a rope for the Noire abseils...

You'd probably manage the Bionnassay without touching a glacier from the Conscrits > Aig de la Bérangère > Dômes de Miage > Durier.

In reply to jon: If you traversed the Besso and Blanc de Moming you could also climb the Zinal Rothorn without touching a glacier too.

In reply to Tim Chappell: The Dirruhorn from the Tasch side of Galenjoch might be possible, which would allow access to all the Nadelgrat peaks and (getting increasingly unhelpful) Dom, Taschorn and Alphubel.

In reply to MG:

It is!

In reply to Tim Chappell:

The Breithorn. Little more than a steep walk in good conditions.

In reply to jon: In these threads it is traditional for someone has to mention the Grandes Jorasses via the Tronchey ridge too.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth: Take care. There can be some alarmingly large and hidden crevasses very near the cable car exit.

In reply to jon: good one! But Tim wouldn't be totally stuffed when he reached the Blanche: instead of being philosophical he could continue up the Peuterey to Mont Blanc (I don't recall any crevasses apart from a jumpable rimaye going down to the Col and another rimaye to start the upper arete), and descend via the Gouter (again, I don't recall any crevasses on the Dome).

As another candidate, am I right in thinking that the Lenzspitze ENE ridge from Mischabel hut doesn't involve a glacier? (I haven't done it, but the guidebook description talks about approaching by a rock ridge)

Rob

In reply to rif: There's a short bit of glacier to cross to the ENE ridge iirc

In reply to rif:

Absolutely. In fact Hilary and I set off one morning a couple of years ago to do exactly that, then to traverse the whole of the Nadelgrat to the Galenjoch and down to Gratchen. Unfortunately we bailed due to bad weather. We returned the following year and did the Nadelgrat from the Galenjoch, which I can heartily recommend.

In reply to MattG:

Ah, is there? It was dark...! But I thought you just kept on that sort of earthy ridge until you reach the ridge proper? Must be mistaken.

In reply to jon: No, I probably am, it was dark too and we headed to the Nadelhorn

In reply to MattG:

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.4000er.de/photo/detail/Lenzs...

Look at the fourth photo.

In reply to MG:

Alphubel from Mischabeljoch is surely going up wet-glacial terrain. So that's offside.

Gordon's offside too. I know the route from Klein Matterhorn to Breithorn summit is almost completely crevasse-free-- I've done it, and we only stepped over one (that we could see)-- but it is still a wet glacier.

I'm presupposing in this thread that we're talking about routes you can do without breaking the no-soloing-wet-glaciers rule. I'm aware that's not an absolute rule, but I want to see how far we can get without breaking it.

I'm aware the distinction between wet and dry glaciers isn't absolute, either.

Interesting suggestions though; keep 'em coming. I particularly like the Zinalrothorn-via-almighty-traverse idea. I might even dig out the bivvy bag and try it some dry summer

In reply to Tim Chappell:

It's not actually via the (rather extended and totally impractical!) route I suggested.


Do you want to place a limit on the grade of climbing required or is the only criterion no wet glaciers?

In reply to MG:

I had a no-rope condition. I'm aware that doesn't impose an absolute limit either. If they were ways to 4000ers, it wouldn't exclude the Eiger or Dru north faces... but I meant routes that don't involve anything serious or technical, routes which might be pretty airy but which you can do without being either mad, stupid, incredibly brave, or all three.

In reply to Tim Chappell: In that case I think you have all the options all ready.

In reply to Tim Chappell:
Here's another candidate: Jungfrau by the Inner Rottal ridge. Again not done it, but judging by Martin Moran's AC guide the nearest it has to a glacier seems to be a little snow shoulder at the edge of a small hanging glacier.

In reply to rif:

I have done it - you do sort of cross the small glacier. What about the Nollen route on Monch? Or the normal route if you don't count the bulldozed track across the glacier?

In reply to MG: Nollen also goes over a small hanging glacier, though I don't recall any crevasse problems when I was on it.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Of course if you go in spring, using skis, rather than in summer several more become safe without a rope: Finsteraarhorn, Jungfrau, and others in the Oberland, several around Saas Fee and on the Italian side on Monte Rosa, the Paradiso, etc.

In reply to rif:

Two days ago I walked up the Lagginhorn using the ridge all the way to avoid going on the Laggingletscher, because I didn't know whether it was dry or wet. Coming down I could see that everyone else was crossing it unroped, and it looked dry, so I did too. It was just a big mushy snowfield. There was one black hole in it, but quite unalarming.

In reply to rif:

Ahh, skis. Yes, that's the way I want to descend my 4000ers. On the trip I've just finished, both the Bishorn and the Nadelhorn would have been perfect ski descents. And it would have been so much quicker than schlepping down them in the sun. I imagine with decent skins it wouldn't be much slower going up, either. At least, not on the Bishorn-- on the Nadelhorn we'd have had to carry the skis up.

In reply to Tim Chappell: Gran Paradiso
Lots of people descending unroped when we were up there. That was in June though so maybe it's worse later in the year

Matterhorn would be hardcore without a rope, I suppose it partly depends on your experience

In reply to stevev:

So which route up the Gran Paradiso is it that does not involve a wet glacier?

In reply to MG:

Yep, went up to my waist in one in thick weather last year, and on trying to get out, watched a worrying amount of snow disappear into the abyss....

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Sorry about that. As it is over 45 years since I did the Breithorn I had completely forgotten that there were any hidden crevasses.


I would not like to be on the Biner Slabs if they are icy, without a rope.

Also, I think your suggestion of the Hornli without a rope is somewhat foolhardy (understatement!) on account of loose rock and also the large numbers of other people typically on the route (risk of stone fall). Also, the roof of the Matterhorn above the fixed ropes would be very scary indeed without a rope, in icy conditions.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:



I'm sure you're right, though I haven't done the Hoernli. People do solo it, of course, but that was a tongue-in-cheek suggestion, put in to forestall other UKCers, who were bound to put it in if I didn't...

In reply to Tim Chappell: You can go up Gran paradiso very easily via the Normal Route solo without crossing any glacier. You can see crevasses about but you're not anywhere near them. We went up ropeless last August and it's just a walk with a wee scramble at the top. Nice though.

Remember there's plenty of peaks below 4000m that are nice too and don't involve glaciers. We are in Termignon at the moment and had the intention of going up the Dent Parachee and Grand Casse (though we'd use a rope for this)

We're having van issues at the moment though and aren't able to get much of anything done as we're busy with garages

Also, we went up the Balfrin last summer (just under 4000m) and that didn't involve glaciers (you go up some ridge in it's entirety, bit chossy at bottom but it means you skip the glacier crossing) sorry can't remember what ridge it was, but will be in my log book.

Also, the Laginhorn but i think someone mentioned that already. We were also going to do some long traverse of the Weismiss that involved missing out the glacier, but can't remember what it was either! (it's in the Valais East guide though)

In reply to Sonya Mc:

Hi, Sonya. I don't wish to be argumentative or anything, but this don't look glacier-free to me:

http://www.camptocamp.org/routes/53835/fr/grand-paradis-par-le-glacier-du-g...

But then, I don't own the Paradiso map or guidebook, so I don't know which route you have in mind.

OK so it's wet, but is traversed by hundreds of folk daily. No sogn of any crevasses on route from emmenauell vittoria.

In reply to stevev:

Hmm. And do these hundreds of people rope up?

In reply to jon: Ah yes, my mistake, nice photos by the way

In reply to Sonya Mc: Grand Casse is glaciated on the normal route, it's just quite a steep glacier!

I could say the same about the Matterhorn.

There were plenty on Paradiso unroped, altohugh most did use a rope.

In reply to MattG: I know, that's why i said we'd be using a rope! Doesn't look like we'll have time anyway, everything is f*cking up

In reply to Tim Chappell: Ok, so it probably wasn't correct to say that it's not a glacier. But the Normal route doesn't go near any crevasses. Most people were roped up (but that's cos they were being guided or just being ninnys) No need for a rope whatsoever, you don't cross any crevassed ground and there are no pitches of any kind. Unless you're a guide, short roping clients then I think a rope is dangerous on this kind of terrain unless you know what you're doing with it. It's just walking up a steep (but not even grade I ground) snow slope. The scrambly bit at the top is a bit of a farce mind, with ropes and people everywhere.

In reply to MattG: Just re-read my post and yeah I do mention Grand Casse in relation to not being glaciated. My bad, didn't mean that at all. More that there are nice peaks below 4000m and that's one that we were thinking of doing (roped up) But D.Parachee we will (if we don't have anymore disasters!) go up ropeless.

In reply to Sonya Mc:

Good luck with that van Sonya!!

In reply to MG:

Thanks for saving me the effort to follow this tradition and be the usual pedant myself!

However, last week I was there for the usual pointless walk up the Aiguille de L'Eveque slopes, and it occurred to me how extraordinarily straightforward the whole Tronchey ridge business is (for a major 4000 TD route, that is) - you park your car in front of Chez Giulietta in Val Ferret, start walking in the ridge general direction, and eventually, after a couple of days you may be on the summit of the Jorasses. No complication whatsoever - non traces, trails, fixed ropes, signpoint, lifts, NOTHING to follow, nothing up there except the tiny Jachia bivy. Particularly no one else around! And if you return the same way (happens to a lot of people) - the bar is at the start of the route!

In reply to Sonya Mc:

A lot of people do that, but it's not without considerable danger. Every year some crevasses related accident happen, sometime to guided groups that for some reason go unroped. Particularly in the last section is better to rope.


I agree with this. There are dozen of peaks above 3500m that require absolutely no glacier skill and can be soloed without particular danger. Here's one of my favourite of this type - the Roncia -> Lamet horseshoe above Mt. Cenis. It involves traversing nine peaks above 3400 meters (including a big 3600m) and it can be easily soloed in good weather (did it in both directions but from Pt. Roncia to Pt. Lamet is far easier and rewarding). This is a nice photo report of it, but there are other on the web

http://www.lafiocavenmola.it/modules/xcgal/thumbnails.php?album=2842

In reply to Sonya Mc: Cool, well I hope some routes work out for you, the snow conditions should be quite good in the colder air once the unsettled weather passes through

In reply to Luca Signorelli:



Thanks, Luca. It's partly because of the kind of factor that you mention that I started by asking for routes with *no* wet glacier action, not for routes *with a bit of wet glacier that probably won't hurt you*.

In reply to Tim Chappell:
*with a bit of wet glacier that probably won't hurt you*.

You do realize gravity works on rock ridges too?

In reply to MG:

Amazingly enough, yes I do @-)

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Mont du Tacul

In reply to bighell:

How?

....Although descending from the Midi un roped is rather interesting.

In reply to jon:



How wot ?

In reply to bighell:

That's the safe bit.

In reply to jon:

How indeed? You might go along the righthand/ skyline rim of the glacier in this picture, but you'd have to get to the start of the rim first.

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=mont+blanc+du+tacul&um=1&hl=en&...

Same point applies for the Aiguilles du Diable ridge.

In reply to jon:

Yes would agree , Only roped up here once would rather go unroped

In reply to bighell:

No, I think you didn't read the first sentence of Tim's OP. Of course you might not have recognised it as a sentence, as it doesn't start with a capital letter.

In reply to jon:

Tis too a sentence. It starts in the thread title, and carries on in the first line of the first post.

Don't imagine you can outpedant me.

In reply to jon:

Ahhhhh! OK then. The best way to descend from the midi top station intending to climb Mont Du Tacul is to go roped, preferably a rope of two. Most climbers do it this way, only crazzzzzzie buggers like me go solo..... Hows that then ?

In reply to Tim Chappell:

I doubt I can, but I think you're clutching at straws.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

I like that, it's like one of them illuminated manuscripts with the whole

I <- this enormously embossed gilded and barely recognisable, taking up a good chunk of the page

n the beginning.... <- this barely legible

It's good to see that this has gone from being an interesting thread to one where where spelling and punctuation are discussed at length....

In reply to pneame:

I think you'll agree though Peter, that there is a certain inconsistency in Tim's two topic titles/first 'sentences' running as we type.

Alps 4000ers you can climb without

a rope or a wet glacier crossing?

Far be it from me to sound like a pretentious arse...

...but the plural of via ferrata is obviously vie ferrate.

Call me old fashioned, but I prefer the second.

In reply to jon:
No, I think the first. It follows on from this idiom:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/BookKells.jpg
or this
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/LindisfarneFol27rIncipit...
the text should just continue as if nothing was happening

In reply to Tim Chappell: Right. Your thread title should be

"Alpine 4000ers..."

or

"Alps' 4000ers..."

Beat that for pendantry.

In reply to bighell: You know when you get to the bottom of the ridge from the Midi? What would you call the thing you are standing on?

In reply to MG:
Snow

In reply to MG:

What, the big white thing?

In reply to pneame:


Yes, I knew what you were describing. Can't seem to find the right font, though.

In reply to MG:

Easily beaten. "Alps' 4000ers" is just wrong. In this context "Alps" is attributive, not genitival. So no apostrophe. So there.

In reply to Tim Chappell: But alps isn't an adjective.

In reply to MG: And in any case, surely you mean "Alpi 4000ers..."

In reply to MG:

and only applies to the summer pastures, AFAIK, not the annoying pointy bits that get in the way....

In reply to MG:


It doesn't need to be. "Alps" is to "4000ers" here as "England" is to "cricket team" in "England cricket team".

In reply to Tim Chappell: Hmmm.

In reply to Tim Chappell:


That'll be the "England and Wales cricket team" then boyo.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Back on course... The Aiguille Verte via the Grands Montets arête. And thus the Grande Rocheuse, Aiguille du Jardin and les Droites.

Further east, there's the Lauteraarhorn and therefore the Schreckhorn by traversing from the Lauteraarhorn.

In reply to jon: There will soon be fewer 4000m peaks that it is necessary to cross a glacier to get up if any devious route is allowed.

How about Pyramid Vincent by following the SW(?) ridge joining it below the glacier somewhere around the Mantova hut and then Punta Giordani.

Can Cresta Signal be approached avoiding glaciers to get to the Signalkuppe?

In reply to MG:

Yes, I think it can. The ones I mentioned above aren't devious though, they are made up of well travelled routes.

In reply to jon:


How would you get off after that monster traverse without crossing glaciers?

In reply to Simon4:

Well he didn't say anything about the descent, but you could always reverse it.

Can we turn this round. Which peaks are completely surrounded by ice

Pollux
Mont Maudit
Mont Blanc du Tacul
Fiescherhorn and Gross Grunhorn


Finsteraarhorn?
Castor?

Any others?

In reply to MG:

Mont Blanc and Monte Rosa. Rimpfischhorn. Alphubel. Allalinhorn. Schreckhorn.

Nadelhorn. Lenzspitze. Taeschhorn. Dom. Hohbaerghorn. Dirruhorn.

Dent du Ge'ant.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Follow the Brouillard ridge all (really all) teh way


and Monte Rosa.

See above - Cresta Signal


Rimpfischhorn.

Half - from Berghaus Flue

Alphubel.

Rotgrat?

Allalinhorn.

OK

Schreckhorn.

See Jon's suggestion above

See up thread


Up the Tronchey Ridge and turn left.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

...Piz Bernina.

In reply to MG:

All good points, thank you. And when (/if) I repeat Alphubel, I really must do it via the Rotgrat. Looks like the most interesting way up anyway.

Oh look, another thread possibility: the most boring 4000er in the Alps. I would have to say it's Alphubel, despite its astonishing view.

In reply to jon:


I think I'll go back to the plural of "Via Ferattas", it might make my head (or arm) hurt less!

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Monch from the Jungfrau railway station.

In reply to Tim Chappell:
The Bishorn isn't wildly exciting either. And at least the Alphubel is a fairly genuine free-standing mountain, rather than just a shoulder of a much bigger and finer mountain.

In reply to Bob Aitken:

We did the Bishorn this trip, for acclimatisation purposes. The main thing about it was the view of the Weisshorn from the summit, peeping through the clouds, looking very high, very distant, very inaccessible, and very beautiful.

In reply to Tim Chappell:
Yes indeed. But the day we were there, seeing and photographing that view required a constant game of ring-a-roses with the cheerful multitude of other folk gathered on the summit at the same time.