UKC

Had a quick do at Denham quarry today. There is a climb, Mohammed the Morbid Mogul (S 4a).

Anyhow, part of the climb requires a fairy long traverse at a significant height.
The traverse is on a ledge that is wide enough to shuffle sideways along but is entirely unprotected and the length of the traverse means shortly after starting the traverse any fall is a definite Deckout!!
At the end of the transverse is a committing move round a break in the ledge. Then a broken climb up to the top of the crag.

A lot of comments are made about this climb being unprotected and not one to repeat because the this.

Now what are people's opinions on placing a single bolt to protect the move off the ledge.

Just before anyone pulls the trigger on me, I'm not a rogue bolter, I just wonder if it would help encourage more people to use the crag and maybe even climb this route.

In reply to Davidwi:


Almost certainly. Same goes for Lord of The Flies.

In reply to Davidwi:

Go. Back.Under. Your. Bridge. Please

In reply to Davidwi:
I know what you mean about the deck-out potential and it's not immediately obvious from the (brick) guide that there is no gear on the 'easy' traverse. There is/was?a peg near the DC but that's after the narrow bit.

The route is a bit rubbish overall and it just feels like a reason make use of the decent start and finish up anything remotely similar in grade. I've seen a few parties finishing it and saying never again. Not worth the risk for a crap, wandering route.

If someone placed a bolt it would totally change the character of the route, so folks will probably not approve.

A better description would help. I don't have the latest guide.

In reply to sbc23:

I do have the latest guide which is of zero help. It says something along he lines of be careful placing runners to reduce rope drag.
I think the issue is more once your up there you have little option of escape except for a back track and down climb.

I'm not a super climber but I'm pretty happy at Vs HVS on lead but I felt like the move off the ledge was not worth it. There's is a small but it would take an absolute microscopic cam to place.

In reply to Davidwi:
The route sounds like a bag of...

If you like doing routes like this then you do them, accept the route as it is, and enjoy the type two fun. If you don't enjoy these types of routes, you wander off, count yourself lucky and find a route that you fancy.

In reply to Davidwi:

Don't do it again, that's the best decision. The grade is misleading, very bold on chossy shit. As mentioned think it's the guide book description that needs updating (even though the new guide is Brand new) before bolting.

In reply to Davidwi:

May I recommend this little climb for you ... The Catwalk (HS 3c)
Strictly no bolting here.

In reply to Lusk:

That does look commiting but the grade goes somewhat to indicate the level of seriousness.

I think I'll add a note to the morbid mogul logbook entry just to let people know.

In reply to Davidwi:

Is the peg near the DC still there? I'm not sure if you can clip that before moving off the ledge.

I found the move across the narrow bit of the traverse more alarming.

In reply to Davidwi:
I think it should be raised at the BMC Area Meeting before any bolts are placed, but I take your point having led the route a few times. Perhaps an upgrade to VS 4a would put any would be ascentionist in the right frame of mind, without the requirement for any new hardware.

Edit - poor grammar.

In reply to Davidwi:

Apparently there's this great route in Wales, called something to do with Indians on a crag called Clogwyn something or other. Anyway, no one really climbs it much cos its death on a stick, only had half a dozen ascents in 30 years. Seems like a real waste so why don't we stick the odd bolt in it and then we could all give it a go. Makes sense what with all the crowds on the Cromlech and Idwal, spread the load a bit.

In reply to pec:
I'm not saying I want to go bolt the route, I simply asked if it would encourage more people to climb that area of the quarry.
An as a side note that a sev leader might find themselves a little crag fast.

It is more of a hypothetical scenario, but least it gave a few people a rush of blood.

In reply to Davidwi:

Why do you want to encourage more people to climb the route? I've never really understood this ' justification'.

In reply to Davidwi:

How about Sunset Slab? Bold, virtually unprotectable slab that might otherwise be an amenable HS. Why don't we stick a bolt in that? Ah yes, that's because it'd completely destroy the essence of the route!

It's part of the character of the route. Believe it or not, some people enjoy bold, scary climbing. If you don't, you don't have to climb routes which fall into that category. Not every route needs to be accessible to every person.

In reply to Bulls Crack:


It's just disgustingly elitist having routes which are too demanding for some people to get on.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Would it have killed you to give the guy a proper answer? You just come across as a total prick in every single thread where someone asks about protection on a trad route.

In reply to Removed User:


It was a proper answer. I'm sorry if making the effort to understand it would have killed you.

In reply to Robert Durran:


Agreed. I'm off down to "Indian Face" with a drill and two dozen bolts.

In reply to Big Ger:

No need to spoil the spirit of adventure. Half a dozen would do.

In reply to Bulls Crack:

It's never going to be a bustling climbers paradise but maybe get a few more people down there.
If more people climbed there it might keep the local youths away, the trouble causing yob ones.

An why wouldn't we want more people to get out and climb?
Also it's not about elitism, I think your right about if a route is too hard to climb etc...
In this case it isn't too hard it just carries a massive risk.

I think as is suggested, it probably just wants a suggestion making in guide books so climbers know that it's bold and unprotected in parts.

In reply to Misha:


I insist on sufficient bolts to make it safe enough for ME to climb.

30 should do it....

In reply to Davidwi:

I do not know the route, but would mirror the sentiment of others in maintaining the route character. At the end of the day we each make our own decisions which routes to climb based on an assessment. So no bolt is my opinion. That said if the route is a definite ground fall then giving a guide description along those lines and a grade of say HVS 4a would do the trick.

It would increase the traffic no end and all the brave little soldiers who did it would now proclaim what a good climb it is!

I would imagine the route is no harder than severe in reality, but an inflated grade tells a story and hurts nobody.

ps I like the idea of a fairy traverse!

In reply to Davidwi:


Just like any number of routes all over the place.

In reply to Davidwi:

You have to ask yourself what is the point of a route that is an entirely protected shuffle ?

In reply to GrahamD:
What's the point in any route?
Great Slab at Froggatt is one of the greatest unprotected shuffles in the uk!

In reply to deacondeacon:


But it could do with a bolt to attract more traffic.

In reply to deacondeacon:


I think this is something people forget, often.

In reply to Davidwi:

The problem appears to be the route is too serious for the grade, so either the grade or protection need changing. changing the grade is the simplest method, and allows for future changes without damaging the crag.

In reply to Davidwi:

As a more serious reply than my previous one, you do realise the precedent that placing a bolt on a trad crag would set? Do we really want to reopen the highly divisive bolt debates of the 80's all for the sake of a crappy severe in an obscure quarry that would still be a crappy route even with a bolt?
There are a lifetime's worth of well protected trad climbs out there for people who don't want to take big risks, nobody has to climb any route but climbing is a risk sport, climbers must accept responsibilty for their own safety and assess the risks for themselves.

From this:

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/risk-and-safety

"The BMC Participation Statement say that: The BMC recognises that climbing and mountaineering are activities with a danger of personal injury or death. Participants in these activities should be aware of and accept these risks and be responsible for their own actions."

Most of us would walk away from routes like this one most of the time but they should be there for when we feel that way inclined or for those who like that sort of thing. Bolting anything with deckout potential removes that choice.

Your later suggestion of a regrade or some mention in the route description of the risk is rather more sensible.

In reply to Toerag:


I don't know the route in question so I don't know whether the grade is accurate or not but what I would say is that no grade is a guarantee of a happy outcome from a fall. Just because its severe doesn't mean you can't have ground fall.

In reply to Davidwi:

i know the crag and have done the route. Yes it's a bit spicy for a S but they are easy moves on the ledge and really shouldn't see a fall. Denham isn't new to bolts with an old spinner on the complete streaker and several under the big overhang from an old aid route. Adding new bolts isn't going to stop Denham getting in the news as it often is- dry tooling, dog shit, youths smoking weed and throwing bottles at the face, car thefts etc. It's all part of the fun!
You should really be able to assess the routes from the ground and have an idea of what you're in for on grit crags/quarries

In reply to wilkie14c:

get the next guide writer to agree the grade should go up.No bolt.

In reply to paul mitchell:

I'm not sure the grade is wrong to be honest. The first bit is severe and has some good wires. The traverse is unprotected and 8m off the deck, but it would probably be a diff or a scramble if it was 1m above a grass ledge. Probably worth severe because of the run-out. The rest of the route is a set of ledges and it's possible to get in some gear before tackling the heather at the top. This bit is practically the same as 'Bevel' which goes at VD.

It's not easy to see the lack of gear from the ground. A lot of the routes on this wall look blank but you can find stuff when you are on them. Not this one.

Change the description. Grade is probably right as it is.

In reply to pec:


To me it seems as good a reason as any to restart the debate. A huge portion of climbers have strong opinions and were unable to get their voice represented due to the fortune of being born a little (or a lot) too late.

I've climbed a number of routes with high inherent risk and I think that is perfectly acceptable so long as the risk is well represented beforehand. I feel that routes graded at S shouldn't have a risk of ground fall and routes that were safely protected by pegs 40 years ago should either have the in situ gear replaced (probably with a bolt) or they should be regraded.

I think the point I'd like people to take away is that I feel it is unacceptable to give people a false sense of safety by not maintaining/updating fixed gear or grades/guidebooks appropriately.

I feel this is a discussion that needs to be had.

In reply to ad111:

Whilst you are perfectly entitled to your opinion that it should not be possible to have a ground fall from a Severe you are objectively wrong.

My opinion is that your attitudes regarding other people's obligations to you regarding providing you with updated grades is a little entitled.

In reply to ad111:

Do you not think that the difficulty of the unprotected climbing should influence the grade? (Obviously, this is a rhetorical question, of course you can have unprotected severes, why on earth not?).


There's the odd time when the dubiousness of a crucial peg affects the grade, but usually when a peg's rotten you just have to find some more gear. On a case by case basis, pegs are replaced, or routes are regraded. They're not generally replaced with bolts because that becomes arbitrary, rather than the route affording the protection that it does (some of that being pegs that stay in the route). A blanket policy would be very unhelpful, taking each rotten peg as it comes is what we're doing, and it is fine. Occasionally they get replaced. Mostly they don't need to be.

Look at it this way: what is the problem? What accidents have been caused by the issues you think need addressing? Eliminating risk is not welcome in trad climbing!


Well, thankfully, we don't pay an annual fee, or have turnstiles at crags to pay for well-maintained venues where we can sue the proprietor when we fall off and end up in hospital. We get what we're given and if we don't like it we can use our judgment and/or collaborate to change it considering others' views, e.g. clean a route on abseil, trundle a dangerous block, go through the BMC to organise a crag clean-up, discuss replacing crucial gear on a specific route. This is what makes climbing a real, meaningful experience unlike the rest of our commodified, sterile, consumption-obsessed lives.

tl;dr The responsibility is yours.

In reply to ad111:

There must be hundreds of routes graded Sev and below that have serious ground-fall potential. The vast majority of scrambles for starters.

It's just a description problem. If you broke it into sections it would be :

S 4a
S 3a/b
VD 3a/b

In a single pitch, English system adds up to S 4a, hence the need for more info in the description.

USA would be 5.5 R/X I guess and gives you the info.

In reply to ad111:


Read the BMC participation statement I posted above. YOU are responsible for your own safety, every guidebook has a disclaimer in it which basically says anything written in it might be wrong.
I'm not arguing that guidebooks should be deliberately misleading but you need to be aware of the possibilty.
Somehow most of us have managed to stay alive without someone sticking a bolt in wherever there's a spicey runout. The false sense of security is only in your head if you imagine you can trad climb safely without taking more responsibilty for yourself.

In reply to Davidwi:

Slam a bolt in the f**ker.

In reply to ad111:


So a slab you could more or less walk up with your hands in your pockets should be regraded from Easy to VS? The proposal does not stand up to a moments scrutiny. Completely arbitrary - you might just as well have said Diff or E3.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Why some people don't seem to get this is completely beyond me.

In reply to Davidwi:


Is this not a possibilty? A micro cam or a micro stopper or two at the traverse?

In reply to sbc23:

Perhaps a better option would be to add an indication on the side of the grade - I understand we have that in a way with grades like E1 5a - but I think for a beginner climber operating at "beginner grades" it is hard to see what might be easy and safe and what might be easy with serious if you slip off an unprotectable traverse.

In reply to Brown:

That's not quite what I was saying.

I'll try to express myself more clearly. I feel that grades don't provide the necessary information in some cases.

In terms of me being entitled - when I buy a guidebook I do feel entitled to up to date information

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I feel that it would be sensible to maintain routes to the same level of safety the first ascensionist experienced. The idea that pegs in sea cliffs have been maintained or replaced to a reasonable degree is laughable. I would in fact be happy to just get rid of the pegs and change the grades.

Responsibility - I feel I am taking responsibility in a small way right now.

The fact that I have been to meetings, replaced tat and crabs, been to crag clean ups, trundled many dangerous blocks and had your "meaningful experiences" doesn't really impact on the discussion.

In reply to pec:


I am happy with the risk and runout.

I am unhappy with the idea of crap fixed gear. I think it should be removed or maintained to a good standard.

In reply to sbc23:

This is on our 'Offwidth' list now, as getting rid of potentially dangerous lower grade sandbags is one of our obsessions and although we have cleared most from Peak gritstone and helped with a good bit of the Yorkshire variety, Lancs grit is nearly all still on our waiting list.

Incidently 5.5 in the US is typically S 4a so 5.5 R/X would normally be VS 4a.

In reply to ad111:


Firstly, there is no fixed gear on this route but more broadly, who do you think is going to inspect, maintain or remove it on the hundreds/thousands of routes even if it were actually possible to assess the condition of a decades old peg and who's going to pay for it?

Just read the guidebook disclaimer that says in situ gear should always be treated as suspect.

In reply to pec:


I was under the impression that this discussion had become more broadly focussed than just the original route in question. But it does beg the question as to whether our grading system should be updated to reflect high or low risk routes when the risk level may not be apparent.

If cost is the issue - which I agree it is - then I think that suspect in situ gear should be removed and the grades to changed to reflect it.

In reply to pec:

There was some fixed gear on this route in 2015. A peg. Not sure if it helped much because I think it was after the traverse / step up. I don't remember seeing it last week, but didnt climb this exact route.

In reply to Davidwi:

I am a great believer in, if there is an issue then just bang in a bolt. Bowden doors had lost loads of protection points over the years. For example Tigers wall needs a bolt by the overhang, and Pitcher wall has lost its gear and needs a couple of bolts. Same go,s for the likes of The Trial, Poseiden Adventure etc. etc.
Off to B& Q now.

In reply to Davidwi:

You only have to look at the Logbook for this route to see that most find it strange for severe.

Only done it once (last time) and do remember it, I seem to remember Chris Craggs did and article on Denham and this was one of the routes that they used (Pics) but cant find it.

If you are new to climbing this is one of those routes that can catch you out, with no way off, disco legs on the traverse arrrgggg, I think that there should be a warning in the guide book, only for the brave! (e)S 4a

I found it easy but felt it, and I have climbed for over 50 years....

In reply to Stu Tyrrell:

Most scared I've ever been was on the traverse of Allens slab at Froggat. Doesn't mean it isn't severe, though - just that I wasn't a rounded enough severe leader at the time.

In reply to GrahamD:


Yes done that, but you cant use that grit to Lancashire Qry crumbly loose grit, this is what makes it seem scarey.

In reply to ad111:


The system doesn't need 'updated'. The solutions are simple. Either the grade of a route could be changed if modern consensus deems it undergraded, or if that isn't the case then 'serious', 'bold' etc could be put in the description if they aren't already present.

In reply to Root1:
Thats disgraceful, if an established does'nt have a bolt then it should stay that way!!!

In reply to Root1:

Didn't get the reply you were hoping for?

In reply to ad111:


Why? This makes no sense. Should the routes at Millstone all be repegged, wooden wedges back in the cracks, or what? Or everywhere there was a wooden wedge on the FA, shall we put a bold in? So no cams to be used on routes put up prior to 1978 then...


They've been "maintained" well enough for me to love climbing on UK sea cliffs - in fact, I think it's probably the best climbing in the world! What's laghable to me is the idea that it would be an improvement if it was "maintained". This may seem perverse to you, but I honestly like the fact that when I got to crux of Flytrap (E3 5c), not only was it absolutely sopping wet, but there was no peg as mentioned in the guide, just a pathetic little rusty stump. I didn't like it at the time, obviously, but the whole experience - the abject terror, frankly, of the route - was enhanced by having to deal with a difficult situation. There is no gear at the crux. You're not going to die if you fall off, but it's going to be exciting. I chose to do a wild, adventurous route in a Gogarth sea cave. I had to deal with what it threw at me - that's why I went there in the first place instead of Castle Inn Quarry.


Well if you want to go ripping them out, just consult with others first. Personally I think Fay (E4 5c) could do with all the pegs being ripped out (although it would be much more sporting for someone who's a bit tubby to take a fall from after the crux and remove them that way!). Other routes are better with the pegs in The Moon (E3 5c) - they keep your ropes running nicely rather than just looping scarily from the belay up you! One on Zeppelin (E3 5c) got replaced just before I did it as one of my first E3s - it was a thank god clip!

There's nothing wrong with the routes as they are, with bits of old gear in them here and there. Often they're a useful landmark to show the way, even if they won't hold a fall - on old peg is something to aim for on a blank wall.

You seem to be searching for a blanket policy that can be applied to all routes to reduce the unknown and the reliance on one's own skill and judgment. No such policy will work: we should just continue to take each route as it comes, upgrading routes when they're substantially changed by the loss of gear (e.g. Eroica (E4 6a) - now a mega classic E4 and a very different proposition to "the safety experienced by the FA") or replacing gear if necessary to keep a classic route from total neglect (or whatever criteria satisfy a discussion of interested parties).

In reply to Jon Stewart:

>You seem to be searching for a blanket policy that can be applied to all routes to reduce the unknown and the reliance on one's own skill and judgment.

On the contrary, I am seeking a blanket policy that means one can rely completely on ones skill and judgement as opposed to luck!

You make a good argument based on lots of experience and I respect that. I just think that is fixed gear is in a route it should be good and if it is suspect then it should be taken out. It's an expected learning curve to know which pieces of gear you place will hold but it just seems stupid to keep gear in the wall that looks crap and provides a false sense of security and consequently increased risk.

In reply to ad111:


But again, WHO do you think is going to take it upon themselves to inspect all the fixed gear, assess it (if that's even possible) and take it out? How do you imagine anybody could keep on top of a project like that?
Suppose Joe Bloggs sticks a new peg in a route because he thought the old one was dodgy, how do the inspectors find out? And what if Joe Bloggs was crap at placing pegs and someone dies when it fails (having clipped it on the false assumption that "all fixed gear is now safe 'cos it gets inspected) before the inspectors had even found out about it or had chance to look at it?

Maintaining all fixed fear would be an absolutely mammoth task and what happens when a piece they assessed as safe and left in place later fails? Should they (whoever 'they' may be) be legally liable because sooner or later that's going to be tested in the courts if we go down your proposed route.
Why can't you just accept that climbing is a risk sport and one in which YOU must take responsibilty for yourself. If you're not willing or able to do that then don't climb routes with fixed gear or read the bloody guidebook disclaimers that say treat all fixed gear as suspect and assume its crap, if it turns out to be ok then consider it a bonus.

In reply to pec:


Obviously I'm not suggesting one bloke do it on a weekend. If a decision was made by climbers to remove the shit inset gear over the next 10 years that would work fine.

How do you imagine anybody could keep on top of a project like that? Suppose Joe Bloggs sticks a new peg in a route because he thought the old one was dodgy, how do the inspectors find out? And what if Joe Bloggs was crap at placing pegs and someone dies when it fails (having clipped it on the false assumption that "all fixed gear is now safe 'cos it gets inspected) before the inspectors had even found out about it or had chance to look at it?

Who the hell places pegs on new routes these days???

Maintaining all fixed fear would be an absolutely mammoth task and what happens when a piece they assessed as safe and left in place later fails? Should they (whoever 'they' may be) be legally liable because sooner or later that's going to be tested in the courts if we go down your proposed route.

Just take it out???

Why can't you just accept that climbing is a risk sport and one in which YOU must take responsibilty for yourself. If you're not willing or able to do that then don't climb routes with fixed gear or read the bloody guidebook disclaimers that say treat all fixed gear as suspect and assume its crap, if it turns out to be ok then consider it a bonus.

I feel you aren't reading what I've been writing. In almost every post I've stated that the risk of trad climbing is fine. I do take responsibility for my own climbing. By doing that I don't trust shit gear. I just think it's irresponsible as a community to leave it there for someone who doesn't know better to trust and then hurt themselves on.

In reply to pec:

>Why can't you just accept that climbing is a risk sport and one in which YOU must take responsibilty for yourself. If you're not willing or able to do that then don't climb routes with fixed gear or read the bloody guidebook disclaimers that say treat all fixed gear as suspect and assume its crap, if it turns out to be ok then consider it a bonus.

I'd go further. One of the beuties of climbing in this country is that one can pretty much choose the level of apparent risk (not necessarily actual risk which depends also on the level of competence and focus of the climber) by chosing the routes appropriately. So the risk averse can chose bolted routes or well protectable trad routes whilst anyone wanting to push the mental side of their climbing can do so. The rock naturally caters for both.

In reply to Michael Gordon:
Damn!

In reply to ad111:


I do. I've climbed well over 450 new routes in the past 5 years. Pegs have been placed and subsequently left on a tiny handful of them - I guess about 5 or 6 - where there was absolutely no alternative and where such a placement was, after deliberation, regarded as crucial to prevent serious injury or even death. Please note we're talking marginally protected climbs here. No one sensible is going to place a peg where there's a viable alternative.

To ask such a question shows a real lack of awareness at best, at worst a palpable ignorance.


Your reference to community 'responsibility' is a very simplistic viewpoint. It's absolutely fine if you don't trust gear you deem to be 'shit' although other climbers, perhaps on the basis of a broader experience, might come to a different assessment of what they deem to be 'shit'. One person's shit gear is another person's protection opportunity ... Bolts are often cited as 'good' fixed gear but, as an aside, I've seen some pretty shitty bolting in my time, including designer danger bolting and wholly inappropriate bolting (10mm expansion bolts, badly placed bolts or expansion bolts used instead of glue-ins in friable or fractured rock). Taking your logic to the extreme, every bolted climb could potentially have shit gear on it and so would be best avoided.

Fixed gear isn't just pegs or bolts though; it's also a whole plethora of abseil stakes, abseil tat, threaded slings, fixed chains, steel hawser cables etc. All climbers need to be able to make risk-assessment decisions as to whether such gear is safe to use - and the learning process involved in gaining experience has to start somewhere.

As others have repeatedly said, climbing is a risk sport and cannot (shouldn't?) be sanitised to the degree you apparently desire. If this is unacceptable, then best just climb on indoor walls perhaps?

And it's probably a good idea to avoid climbing in the Dolomites too.

In reply to Davidwi:


Have you climbed Jean Jeanie (VS 4c)?

In reply to Davidwi:

Ok ok, we get the message. No bolt. It was an innocent question with the intention of genuine debate.

I'm not sure about this particular route but I think there should be a happy medium between protecting the rock and protecting the climber. No-one wants to hear of a climber dying unnecessarily due to there being an unwillingness to place/replace a critical piece of fixed protection.

Take the peg on Shivers Arete (E1 5b) for example. Without that the consequences of a fall on the frux could be catastrophic. And before anyone says its a dangerous sport, fine, start soloing every route.

I this case though, I think no bolt is needed but the grade is probably wrong. I actually like the sound of a spicy HS/VS 4a.

In reply to Dave Williams:


I'm not taking a stance here either way, but to be fair to the guy, I would ask the same question (rhetorically) and personally was under the impression that hardly anyone did this (I can think of a few examples). I imagine many in the same situation might think "shit, there's no gear; I'll leave this for someone else" as placing pegs is just not something they would consider (for whatever reason), so it's really not a silly question.

In reply to Davidwi:
Best investment would be a big sign saying: "Do Not Climb here, go to Wilton you idiot."

That said, a bolt that would prevent any chance of someone landing into the green pool of nuclear waste would probably be beneficial.

In reply to Davidwi:

11 likes and 16 dislikes

you can still pull this out of the bag

In reply to Rob Powell LC&CC:

that peg caught me. the E1 grade of the route is moving above the peg not knowing if it'll hold a fall! It's easy when you how the move goes though

In reply to wilkie14c:
How can people dislike a question? It's not a statement as such, it's background for anyone who hasn't been there so they can have an opinion.

It's certainly given one or two a rush of blood.

Anyhow I'll get the SDS drill on charge just in case. (Now this is a joke, before someone has a aneurism)

In reply to Rob Powell LC&CC:

No not yet. Was at trowbarrow the other week. I was advised I'd need a few big cams and the biggest I had was a 3.
It does look abit daunting but it's on my list for this year.

In reply to pec:


Same as who always does it: the climbing community.

In reply to Davidwi:


I think the dislikes are because the question implies change and change is something that many people fear, even those who are prepared to risk their lives whilst rock climbing. It might seem laughable, even absurd, to compare mega classic hard testpieces like Lord of the Flies or Indian Face with some shitty severe in a run down Lancashire quarry but I think fear of change is what lies behind such comments.

For lifelong climbers the no bolt ethic is believed almost as firmly as a religious person's belief in the existence some god so it's dissolution is also bound up with their whole identity.

Personally I think change is inevitable and is already underway and most people are looking in the wrong direction. The change they fear is not from the bolting of traditional routes but from indoor and artificial climbing walls. Interestingly the resistance to bolting of trad routes might actually be accelerating this change in climbing.

I don't know if you're serious about the bolt on this particular route or whether you're just seeing what reaction this might get. But if you really think the route deserves a bolt the best thing is just to put one in. If people think this is a bad idea and it shouldn't be there someone else will take it out. But if not the bolt will remain. Personally I couldn't care either way. Like most climbers I've never been to Denham Quarry and probably never will so it won't affect me either way.

In reply to stp:


Could be a bad plan, I would find it hilarious, but there are some in the quarries who get very excited about this kind of thing.

In reply to Davidwi:

I thought there already were bolts at Denham? *stirs pot*

In reply to Jamie B:

There is one that I am aware of on
Eff Vee Tee (E4 6b)

To be fair though I think you need to be part spider to even think about climbing it.

In reply to stp:


Which is precisely why nobody is going to do it, just as they never have before because they've got better things to do than abseil down loads of routes on Gogarth and other such venues in a pointless exercise to "test" the safety of pegs (which is actually almost impossible anyway).

In reply to Davidwi:

I'm sure there was one on Time when I did it? Admittedly that was late 90s...

In reply to pec:

A lot of re-equipping does get done by the climbing community. It's particularly evident with sport climbs, probably because there is little controversy about doing so. Also there is effort to make replacement gear semi-permanent so once done it won't need doing again for a long time.

There is no point in having rusty pegs or ancient bits of tat hanging from our crags. And there is equally no point in having routes that are poorly equipped and can't be done. Instead of all the ego-driven BS about boldness and danger I think there needs to be some mature thought about the long term maintenance of fixed gear. If bolts aren't acceptable then maybe stainless steel pegs could be cemented in the same spot, or close to previous placements for instance.

It would be helpful if climbers carrying out such re-equipping were praised rather than criticised too. After investing effort, time and expense in re-equipping something the last thing anyone wants is to receive a load of flack from armchair critics for doing so. In such an atmosphere it's hardly surprising that not much stuff gets done.

In reply to sbc23:

Is there also an old aid route somewhere in the quarry - bolts and all?

In reply to wilkie14c:

I know, I led it as my first E1a few weeks ago. High five brother

In reply to Davidwi:

It is an amazing route. One of the best in Lancashire. Sustained enough to get you pumped but not enough to peel you off. By the end you are drained. Problem is the popularity means polish; it is smooth as silk. If you want an even better challenge then go for Harijan next door. The bouldery start puts people off so it is nowhere near as polished and better for it.

In reply to Rob Powell LC&CC:

i'm no longer in lancs but while i was, climbing mates used to come up and i'd give them a whistle stop tour of the best in lancs. the mad monk, jean jeanie and coral sea, terra cotta, 999, the delicate cameo, shivers arête, central crack. They always leave surprised at the quality of these gems. No bolts here please, nothing to see in these midge infested holes, move along now