UKC

I spotted a sport route I hadn't seen before at Ratho today. It's the line left of Impure Allure.

Anyone have details on the name/grade?

Cheers

In reply to the_animal:

Don't know about a grade but it certainly sports 2 dirty ,big chipped holds at the crux ! To add insult to injury the bolting of this line has impinged on 2 existing trad lines.

In reply to the_animal:

Ask here?

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/profile.php?id=4478

In reply to smally:
Oh dear, are we playing this game again?

I assume this is the line leading up and right (ish) from the base of the flake of Ouroborus (HVS 5b)to pass through the direct finish? If this is the case it'd be a shame as the climbing on the upper wall of Ouroborus Eliminate (E3 5c) is pretty good. I'd looked at this a while back but decided against it in the end as it'd have to be a compromise on bolting to be unreachable from either of the existing lines.

Name and shame!

Not sure exactly where it goes but it looks good..

In reply to the_animal:

7c apparently. No more details than that.

In reply to the_animal:

Wasnt going to raise issue with this line until I had at least climbed it, but it does put a bolt (or two) bang in the middle of the lovely, bold, upper section of Oroborous Eliminate. I know some people just bail off left at the ledge for that route anyway, but IMHO that a. misses the point of the route and b. reduces the grade to E25c.
As does this bolt line.

Predictable question - did anyone ask the original ascentionist of O.E.?
Did anyone ask anyone?

...and also - chipped holds? really?

In reply to Dr Toph:

Such a shame, nice climbing on the top of OE too. At 7c I'd imagine it's pretty unbalanced as you're onto easyish ground once you reach level with top of ouroboros.

You'd think after the last debacle the retrobolters might have at least asked around a bit first. It's not as though you couldn't go look through the guide inside!

In reply to JamieSparkes:


Maybe they did. I don't know what they did, do you?

In reply to Fraser:


Whatever they did or did not do, their actions seem to have gone against the consensus/common ground that emerged from the last debacle that new sport routes can happily exist alongside trad in the quarry as long as routes are not retro bolted.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I can appreciate that opinion and in theory would agree, but until we all have more information, it might be best to wait until such times as we do before making thusfar unsubstantiated allegations.

In reply to Fraser:

Bolting does tend to lead to a lack of respect for rock.the bolts themselves are an affront.

In reply to paul mitchell:


I think that is a bit harsh. Bolts just lead to more traffic. More traffic leads to more damage. Those doing the damage have no less respect for the rock than anyone else, it's just fair wear and tear to a well trodden path.

The world is full of humans, enviably they will have an impact on *their* environment. In the big scheme of things a few iron deposits left here and there will be considered small beer when we tally up all the foolish things we did to our planet.

As for the new route, I'll be quite disappointed if the position of the bolts turn out to be just too controversial to stay. I was looking forward to having new local-ish potential project to climb.

In reply to JLS:

A reasonable compromise might be to remove the bolts that infringe on the existing route, on the basis the others will keep you off the deck and that you can probably cope with a little E3 run out if you can climb a 7c lower section!

More concerning is the chipping!

In reply to JamieSparkes:

I'll possibly be at Ratho this weekend and will try and take a look at the route and bolts...and the chipping as smally noted. I'd be shocked and surprised if this has indeed happened. I can't really remember much about that part of the quarry tbh - is it possible that they've been there for some time or existing holds have come off and left 'scars'? I respect smally's experience in being able to tell if they're old or new, so maybe he can confirm.

I will try and upload some photos here if I make it over there.

In reply to JamieSparkes:

>"A reasonable compromise might be to remove the bolts that infringe on the existing route, on the basis the others will keep you off the deck"

Perhaps, but I can't say I'm any more than lukewarm on that idea.

Alleged chipping!

In reply to JLS:

from fb: " I bolted a new line on the blank face left of Impure Allure at around 7b+/c, it's a nice route with one enhanced hold . There's plenty of room for more new routes in my opinion...."

There is a photo as well but I don't know if it's public:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1836638906570229&set=p.18366389...

Looks like a bolt in the start of ourborus, and at least one in the direct finish. I can't tell from photo quality if there is a lower off as well.

In reply to Fraser:

Hi,
About 2 years ago I cleaned the crux section and headwall of this line. The crux turned out to be a massive dyno so I lost interest in it as a potential route. I think Robbie managed it an a top rope. This autumn I was in the quarry and was surprised to see a line of bolts on the line, with a different start climbing above the Oroborous initial ramp.
Fair enough I thought, it will make a hard but safe dyno problem, and maybe some re positioning of bolts would keep the trad feel to the existing routes. On the ab I then found a large newly chipped handhold at the crux, reducing it to an awkward slap , and a superfluous chipped foothold. Without doubt chipped into the smooth wall, I'm of the opinion they should be filled in and the line attempted in it's original state. No doubt it will be a good deal harder than 7c but then what's wrong with having a hard project in the quarry that would give good air time !

In reply to smally:

Oh dear, doesn't sound too good.

In reply to smally:
Dirty. There are places that would get you lynched.
Trying not to get to annoyed here, but Buzz, if you read this - the quarry is not yours to do with as you please.
At least learn from the previous retrobolting shit-storm that a basic degree of respect for existing (trad) lines and/or public consultation is required.
Lets see if we can remedy the situation? Smally's suggestions sound like a good start, as well as (re)moving some bolts.

In reply to smally:

Thanks for the update. I guess it was your original cleaning that made me notice there were holds! Pretty sad but not that surprising if they've been chipped, given that several on the opposite wall received the same improvements.

To Neill - Why not go over the canal and continue the developments there, or open the massive wall at the back of the lagoon in North Queensferry, or dalachy quarry, rather than continuing to spoil the already limited number of half decent trad routes in the area with these artificial creations.

"Dirty big chipped hold" is actually a slot that I cleaned from a loose parallel sided crack, easily filled back in if people want a super hard project? I personally think it's current form works best but happy to go with the consensus (probably best if these people go try the route before giving opinion?)

I did keep the bolts way out to the right so there would be no way of clipping them from Oroborous HVS and kept the 2nd last bolt high so that it couldn't be clipped from Oroborous Eliminate. I'm happy to reposition any of these bolts if they can be clipped from these routes?

Regarding gauging public opinion; I work at Ratho and climb indoors there and regularly trad and sport climb out in the quarry. What better place is there to talk to climbers about the development of the quarry? (and please don't say this forum as I don't believe there is a fair reflection of attitude given on here...)

Let's all try and keep this civil eh?

In reply to buzby78:

Exactly Neil.
A lot of people on here are quick to fire off a response based on here-say and haven't even been to check if bolts are clippable etc.
As to the alleged "chipping", well its pretty easy to tell what is blatantly chipped out of blank rock and what is a loose piece removed.
At the end of the day the whole crag is one massive chip.....

In reply to the_animal:
Question regards what is regarded as acceptable regards aggressive cleaning or chipping when establishing lines. I have recently put up 2 new sport routes near dunkeld. They have been climbed as is, but both share a very sharp crystally slot/crimp, which is painful until u get used to how to take it. Most people keen to try these routes are requesting I comfortize the hold, so as to make it a better climb. This will no doubt make it easier, but nicer. What should I do?
Regards Ratho bolting. I have done this route and would be annoyed if the bolts could be clipped whilst climbing it. However, I know Buzz intimately & would be very surprized if this was the case. I know he contacted both myself & Ian Taylor regards a route a few years back that hadn't had a lot of ascents. Then listened to us when we said it should be left. Fair play really! Regards the previous storm, did seem a bit ridiculous that a completely manky e4 caused so much sh*t. Yet the lower off remained so people didn't have to climb the sketchy top out. Does seem a little bizzar double standards there.
Regards whether chipping or aggressive cleaning should be taking place. Bit of hard one, as personally I would rather have a lower grade better route, but chipping is kind of taboo. However, if getting most out of limited rock is the concern, maybe some strategic chipping might open up a whole lot of blank rock..... I can certainly think of a lot of chipped holds in Central belt that do not really ruin the climbing experience.
Good luck Buzz, Hope you make it out alive!

In reply to mgeek:


'kind of'??


That's a rotten attitude. I thought we'd gotten beyond that.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Fair point, but I am struggling to think of a major crag with sport climbing and trad at it in UK where there isn't chipped or sica'd holds. My local sport crag is completely chipped and Is actually pretty good and I'm glad its there. Hurly Burly is one of best 8bs in Scotland and it aint got any non chips. To be honest I'm less offended with a small chip on a 'Quarry' than I am by a lower of being in place on a trad route, just so people can justify leading it to themselves. Is that not exactly the same thing?.....

In reply to mgeek:

I'd say lower-offs on trad routes are justified under special circumstances, i.e. a quarry with an earth cornice top out. Most folk who object to the lower off oddly seem to come from the position of being in favour of the bolts, so I think are really just using it as an arguing tool.

The holds on Hurly Burly weren't purposely created for the sport route.

My view is that chipping has to be taboo otherwise a few in the future may do it on better (natural) crags under the justification that it has already been allowed elsewhere.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Well quarries have been getting chipped/improved holds for more than 30 years and it hasn't really happened yet....!
This "thin end of the wedge" argument as an arguing tool really has worn so thin that its worn away.

For the record I am still against the lower off on the E4. I cannot see why its right for trad climbers to say a bolt is ok for their convenience but a sport climber cant!

In reply to Michael Gordon:


To be fair, I think they / 'we' were complaining about the hypocrisy of those who wanted all the PW bolts removed but to still retain the lower-off, as they didn't want to have to deal with the [current] top out. But this is getting off on a familiar 'Ratho bolts' tangent.

In reply to sheppy:


I take it you haven't climbed much on Yorkshire limestone?

In reply to Michael Gordon:
Hi Gordon, what were the drill pockets in the slate of Birnam for, genuinely interested to know. Also note here, almost every dry tooling route there has a drilled hole for enhanced pick/crampon placements [& quite right]. Regards the lower off being used as an argument stance for pro bolters. Think its pretty apparent to those who know me, where my passion lies in Scottish Climbing. I don't think the bolts should be there, if they affect a trad route. I also don't think the lower off should be there, just because folk cant justify climbing on crap rock [just top rope it if u don't want to lead it!]. Can think of hundreds of routes at pretty established crags where you have to run a static line down a route so you avoid top out of doom, if you so wish!. Swanage has loads for a start. Having lower off on that route is just creating convenience tradding! Pretty easy to simply rig a lower off from top, just more hassle. So struggling to see where the special circumstances are with this route.

In reply to mgeek:

OK that's a fair argument re the Ratho route.

I thought the holds on Hurly Burly were created for dry tooling but then Dave Mac realised it was worth trying as a sport route?

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Gordon, I don't know the history of Hurly Burly. If I am to be honest I don't actually care about lower of at Ratho. I just find it hilarious that everyone got so worked up about the bolts being removed, but decided they wanted the top 2 bolts and chain to remain because it suited them. These arguments are always just folks opinions on what suits their needs. I personally think sometimes retro bolting is a good thing. It sometimes brings crags back to life. It also 'in my eyes', sometimes makes sense with regards current trends. Correct me if I am wrong [& probably am], but did I not spot a new bolt ladder up the old E4 below Omerta at Dumby? I did look at these and think that there wasn't bolts there before. If I am right and there wasn't bolts there before, then hats off to who ever placed them, makes total sense to me that this route got fully equipped.
Finally I am still none the wiser regards whether I should smooth off the pocket on my new routes. Am I doing a good service in comfortizing these, or am I being out of order changing the rock?

In reply to sheppy:


Oh dear. Up till that point, you were making some fair points. Ridiculous thing to say; effectively saying that any quarried rock is fair game for anybody to do anything without giving a f*** what has happened in the past or what anybodu else thinks now.

In reply to mgeek:
I personally have no problem with the chain on PW because it effectively preserves an excellent trad toute, but I do understand the counter argument. If you or sheppy feel strongly enough about it I honestly think you should chop it; as you say, a rope could be hung over the edge to avoid the death top out.

In reply to mgeek:

I doubt I'd be capable of climbing those lines so won't comment! Certainly those who have actually been on a route (prior to chipping!) should have a greater say than others.

Don't know about that Dumby E4.

In reply to sheppy:


There is here-say and here-say. What smally says is good enough for me. Have you had a look yourself?

In reply to Michael Gordon:

You could definitely climb both the routes Gordon, judging by your boulder vids. I cant get up any of those problems. Secondly the argument on whether its ok to chip a hold or exaggerate a slot has nothing to do with grades people climb, just whether or not it is ethically acceptable or simply bad practice. My routes aint in a quarry, but are at a crag with crazy anti bolt history & am pretty keen to do what's deemed appropriate.

In reply to Robert Durran:

>"There is here-say and here-say."

Indeed. It's hard to imagine anyone less inclined to hyperbole than smally. However, I've a lot of respect for Buz too. I'm super sure he (Buz) is coming from the right place with his attempts put up sport routes on the scraps of rock that decades of trad development have left.

In reply to JLS:



Yes, it seems that this is a situation where everyone actually respects the broad consensus which emerged from the PW debacle - that new sport routes in the quarry are very welcome as long as the existing trad routes are respected. It seems that Buz placed the bolts in good faith and that he will remove or move them if it turns out he has made an honest misjudgement of their clippability from an existing trad route. Problem solved.

In reply to Robert Durran: Bolting issue solved. Was he wrong to exaggerate the holds?..........

In reply to mgeek:


To be honest I have no idea what is generally considered acceptable where "creative cleaning" is concerned, so I won't offer an opinion.

In reply to JLS:

'Bolting does tend to lead to a lack of respect for rock.'


I think that it isn't harsh. But it is incorrect. 'Bolting does tend to indicate a lack of respect for the rock' might be more accurate? And ensuing respect/lack of follows on.

To concentrate on 'traffic' wear and tear whilst ignoring the application of a FGB drill to said rock in the first place does seem to be ignoring the egg and castigating the chicken.

In reply to Robert Durran:


And there is 'hear - say'.

In reply to Andy Say:
I'm somewhat confused by what seem like a contradiction. You say, bolting disrespects the rock, yet a cursory glance at your log book suggests you yourself have no qualms about clipping bolts. What's that all about then? In my mind, it's a bit like sh*gging sheep - if you clip just one bolt... Even if you think it's a bit dirty and you promise yourself you'll never do it again, really you can't then go around judging others that do the same.

In reply to Robert Durran:

What Rob said.

I apologise if I was sounding un-civil in my earlier post (the lynching thing was meant to be light-hearted, think Millstone etc, guess I missed out the winky-face). Im sure Buzz means well, but I do find his approach a little cavalier occasionally

If we can keep to the aforementioned consensus about respecting existing trad lines, then I have no objection to bolted routes appearing in Ratho, but in this case it seems that there may be some impact. Im hoping to get over there in the next few days to check the precise situation from OE, so can make a more informed contribution.

And since its being brought up here, Pettifers is one of the best routes in the quarry IMHO. It is worth ensuring its climbable without the death-cornice, and hence I have no problem with the lower-off as it maintains the route as a viable trad line.

In reply to JLS:

Clipping bolts is nothing like sex with a sheep.*

I was simply pointing out the apparent contradiction between the 'love the rock' / no chipping / brush off your tick marks approach and the willing acceptance of taking a drill to that same rock and making a load of holes. A bit of ethical schizophrenia that I admit I share.




*I believe.

In reply to Dr Toph:


Well said - even if it needs a clean early in the season, it's definitely not merely a "grotty route". Best Scottish mid-extreme slab between Galloway sea-cliffs and Loch Sloy??

Although it's not the route at stake, mentioning Pettifar's does highlight a successful and beneficial situation: Firstly there are many examples around the UK of trad routes with lower-offs or recommended pre-placed belays to avoid unfeasible finishes / escapes, whilst retaining a great trad character. And secondly the death-cornice was caused by the motorway extension work which thus spoilt the original route - a lower-off is just compensating for that change. It is a good compromise, and absolutely not double standards.

It's a pity that if the current sport route does impinge on trad routes again, that there wasn't some form of warning or consultation. Either on here (which might not be to Buz's personal taste but it offers a wider spectrum of interested climbers than just EICA regulars) or on the Central Trad FB group (440 local climbers) or on the EICA Ratho page, or elsewhere.

It's good that Toph, Robert, Jamie, smally etc are taking a keen interest in this though, and hopefully it will get sorted out if needed.

Good that sheppy, geek, jls, me and all the others are taking a keen interest too, just in the interest of balance.

Had a look at it today with toph and it seems only one bolt *might* need slight relocation to avoid any controversy. The 'improved' hold / slot was barely noticeable, at least to me, assuming I was looking at the right one! I'll be interested to hear others' opinions of the situation. It didn't look chipped or fresh, it looked like an existing feature had possibly been cleaned out a bit. (Smally, is it the lh slot just up and left from the big undercling or is it somewhere else?)

Good route, nippy crux and a great addition to the sport lines in the quarry. Good effort Buz.

In reply to Fiend:
...It's a pity that if the current sport route does impinge on trad routes again, that there wasn't some form of warning or consultation. Either on here (which might not be to Buz's personal taste but it offers a wider spectrum of interested climbers than just EICA regulars) or on the Central Trad FB group (440 local climbers) or on the EICA Ratho page, or elsewhere..

Are you kidding? Who the hell would want to ask this pompous echo-chamber for a steer.

In reply to Fraser:

Aye, Fraser and I converged on the two routes in question this afternoon, and there is only one bolt that needs addressing. Oroborous original is unaffected, but Oroborous Eliminate has an un-ignorable bolt, exactly where you might want it, a couple of moves past the last pro in the upper section. The climbing there is easy but bold and is what gives it E3.

To remedy the situation such that both routes can be enjoyed in their entirety, I see two possible solutions:
1. Move the penultimate bolt down and right (I made a wee chalk arc today indicating my reach at the crucial point, it would ideally be outwith that arc)
2. Remove the penultimate bolt entirely, but reposition the last bolt down+left a half-metre or so, such that it remains out of reach of OE but protects the sport climber within a safe fall zone. It may feel slightly run-out through the stepped ramp, but the climbing there should feel very straightforward to one who has just managed the crux moves below.

Hopefully we can find a position so that all persuasions of climbers can enjoy that wall in their own way.

I'll sort out the top 2 bolts at the start of next month, away on a trip at the moment...

Cheers.

In reply to buzby78:

Good stuff buz. I saw the line and Toph's chalkmark today and the situation could be easily remedied as he suggests, it only needs a wee change so both routes can co-exist fine (which would have been good in the first place).

In reply to buzby78:

I've just uploaded a photo of the top of the route (awaiting mod. approval) which hopefully shows the suggested remedials required. I think the line I've shown for OE is correct, but am happy to adjust if it's not. Either of Toph's suggestions would seem fine to me; personally I think it's just the bolt identified as 'T-2' on my photo which could be relocated to keep folk happy.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

Strangely I have, regularly since 1984 and can't say I have seen a rash of chipped holds.... Maybe I haven't been on hard enough routes!

In reply to Robert Durran:

Not passing my opinion on the positioning of the bolts Rob. That's the difference, if you want to spout off about the positioning then at least go and look for yourself!

In reply to sheppy:


So should I ignore all the comments above from sensible people like smally, Fraser, Toph, fiend, buz etc. just because I have been away climbing and havn't had a chance to look myself? I'll will have a look next time I'm there in daylight hours. Anyway, looks like the thing is being resolved admirably amicably (unlike last time, but perhaps thanks to that battle....).

In reply to Fraser:

Hi Fraser,
Some movement of bolts sounds like the best option for all. Also some cleaning of the resin debris that is dotted on the Ouroborus ramp would be good. Didn't have anything to do that with when I visited.
Regarding the hold,yes I'm talking about the slot up and left of the big undercut. As a sometime hewer of stone , I would regard that hold as chipped. Also having looked and worked the moves a couple of years ago , there was nothing there that was remotely usuable. What was there was a weakness in the rock, a seam rather than a crack that split to give a Y configuration. The junction point has been opened out into a rectangular slot . Also there is a chipped foothold to the right of the bolts that seems rather redundant. Thats my interpretation of the current state, and as before I would argue that the route would give a hard but safe dyno crux in it's original state. Central Scotland has plenty of 7b/7c sports routes so how about something a bit more physical for all these dynamic wall climbers .
Cheers Iain

In reply to Michael Gordon:

The holds on Hurly Burly weren't purposely created for the sport route. - Not true - Stork chipped this route fair few years before it was eventually climbed.

Anyone wanting advice on creating holds could ask Duncan McCallum - how about the two drilled 3-finger pockets that were 'created' on Steall Hut Crag back in the early nineties? There was outrage at the time from all who knew, thankfully they were filled in and the bolts removed from the proposed line shortly afterwards...

In reply to Gary Latter:


Ah OK, I didn't know that. Apologies to mgeek

In reply to Gary Latter:

Am I right in thinking that Marlina also has a filled in chipped hold?

In reply to smally:

Cheers for the detailed reply Iain. Interesting about the chipped hold you mention. I can't envisage making the dyno from the undercling!(and possible crescent-shaped, thin side-pull out right)

Garth had thought a foothold out right might be the 'redundant' one you highlighted. Neither of us used it either, if it's the small, roundish dimple, slightly up and right of the big undercling.