James McHaffie and Ben Bransby have repeated the Long Hope Route on St John's Head, Hoy, Scotland, making the second free ascent of this long and difficult sandstone trad route.
"I took one fall on the crux reach. I pulled the ropes and did it next try."
A worthy achievement, but I think it's a bit disrespectful to the guy who put the route up in the first place to call this the second ascent. Not trying to start an argument, but I don't think it necessarily follows that climbing it free after extensive cleaning and top rope practice is an improvement in style over doing it on sight, from the ground up, with no idea if there was even a way up. It's still a magnificent achievement, but in a different game - That's what I think and I may well be wrong. Just my two penn'orth, as they say.
In reply to csw: Well Dave also headpointed it, and wasn't it an aid route of Ed Drummonds?
It's the second free ascent wether you think it's newsworthy or not (which it is).
I'm not saying it isn't newsworthy - of course it is. As a climbing achievement it's so far out of my league that it would be meaningless for me to offer an opinion. I might as well comment on the agony of childbirth. It just rankled a bit to hear this ascent described as "the second". I think that the first ascent is still worthy of respect, even 43 years after the event. Aid notwithstanding.
Thing is, Drummond aided it. McLeod headpointed it. Given the nature of the route I don't think that either style is an improvement over the other. I get that a phenomenally gifted climber, at the peak of his power would want to accept the full challenge of a truly inspirational route. I also can see how, having accepted the challenge of climbing it free, in a single push, there was only one way to do it.
Apologies for the lack of brevity. I think that this route, in its current form is the product of a giant, standing on the shoulders of another giant. It just rankled a bit to hear the latest ascent described as the second. As if the aid used in the first ascent somehow renders it meaningless.
In reply to csw:
"Second free ascent" might be a better wording, I guess.
Really impressive effort in any case, particularly as it sounds like comparatively quick work. Looking forward to reading more when we get more details!
I agree, and I'm not trying to start an argument. Acknowledging the skill and tenacity of the first ascensionists doesn't detract from those who came after.
Yes, some very scary grades there. But instead of the HVS 4b it looks like you could go straight up the rock then traverse left on the horizontal break - but I guess if you're good enough to do the route, charging up HVS 4b terrain is no big deal.
Just wanted to chip in to add that the first ascent made by Ed Drummond and Oliver Hill in 1970 should not be classed as an aid route. Almost all of the route was climbed free. Ed only aided the crux pitch up the head wall so it's a little unfair to class it as an aid route.
Diff.
Time for a downgrade? Surely it can't be E10/E11 if people redpoint it just like that. Or does it get some extra E's just because of the inaccessibility?
In reply to Jubjab: I think 'just like that' is a bit of an understatement. Caff had previously headpointed the top pitch which almost certainly helped him get it done quickly on this occasion.
In reply to Jubjab: Congratulations to James and Ben. A great achievement. I hope they did not find it too easy. To my mind it is the fourth ascent, the second by the Macleod variations and the third free ascent. The first free ascent was by John Arran and Dave Turnbull via our original intended way on the headwall, ground up, uncleaned and unrehearsed, done in two sections three months apart as they got off line. I think everyone who climbs this route will experience a lot of emotion. A lot of emotion, but hopefully not too much. Ground up onsight usually does the trick, as the uncertainty looms overhead, oppressive and impressive, apprehensive. The grade? How can you tell the grade? It is either hard or easy, or you are dead. The Forever Traverse and Unconquerable Flakes pitches still remain unrepeated.
> (In reply to deacondeacon)
>
> Thing is, Drummond aided it. McLeod headpointed it. Given the nature of the route I don't think that either style is an improvement over the other.
>
I don't think MacLeod's ascent was necessarily an improvement on previous ascents, and that's no bad thing! As I understand it the original ascent was a real leap into the unknown and a strong contender for hardest, most committing route in the UK at the time. The Arran/Turnbull free route was a great modern realisation of the challenge. You could say the same for MacLeod's ascent.
Perhaps the next challenge will be Longhope Direct ground up? The crux pitch is, after all, safe if very difficult and run-out.
Completely daft to suggest Macleod's ascent was not an improvement on previous ascents, which were likewise fine achievements at their time, improving on earlier ascents. .
Yes, but I think the gentleman had a point that 'second free ascent' would have been a nicer way of describing this (characteristically impressive) effort.
Well for one thing you can't compare the 2nd/3rd ascents to the original as they were done in a completely different era with far better protection. They also had a lot more info, if only purely in the fact that they knew the wall had already been climbed and the line taken.
Likewise MacLeod had a lot more info at his disposal than Arran/Turnbull who attempted it onsight. He climbed a harder more direct line in a single push but (understandably) inspected, cleaned and pre-practiced the crux section. All ascentionists took up the obvious challenge that existed at the time (as they saw it) and made some truly great climbs.
I just don't think 'improvement' really applies here.
In reply to UKC News:
Out of interest, how do people get to the bottom of the cliff? Is it by multiple abseils and downclimbing or by boat?(I haven't seen the film of the Dave MacLeod ascent, so don't know how they did it; I've seen a video of a base jump descent though, that looked like a good way down but perhaps not with a full climbing rack!)
> Just wanted to chip in to add that the first ascent made by Ed Drummond and Oliver Hill in 1970 should not be classed as an aid route. Almost all of the route was climbed free. Ed only aided the crux pitch up the head wall so it's a little unfair to class it as an aid route.
> Diff.
Can someone confirm this ie that he free climbed three pitches at E5 and one at E6
> (In reply to UKC News)
> Out of interest, how do people get to the bottom of the cliff? Is it by multiple abseils and downclimbing or by boat?(I haven't seen the film of the Dave MacLeod ascent, so don't know how they did it; I've seen a video of a base jump descent though, that looked like a good way down but perhaps not with a full climbing rack!)
It is possible to walk / scramble down to the bottom of the cliff. Least, that's what they do in the movie. I'm going there on holiday and I have to say, I'm tempted to see if it's possible to walk down. Probably a dumb idea, but it's tempting.
Well done to Caff and Bransby.
To all the whingers, come back when you've climbed the route in a better style then you can complain. Until that time, zip it.
In the Longhope Film John Arran says he thinks much of the route would just not have been possible to aid and must have involved sections of E4/5 free climbing.
> (In reply to Misha)
> [...]
>
> It is possible to walk / scramble down to the bottom of the cliff. Least, that's what they do in the movie. I'm going there on holiday and I have to say, I'm tempted to see if it's possible to walk down. Probably a dumb idea, but it's tempting.
>
I don't think the movie shows more than a few seconds of them descending?
> I'm tempted to see if it's possible to walk down
By all accounts it's a harrowing descent. It certainly looks it from the ferry. I think there's a suggestion that some of the steps, normally abseiled, might be impossible to get back up. So be careful out there!
I know some people, include the FAs of Testament to the Insane, took a boat to the beach at the bottom.
> (In reply to shark)
>
> In the Longhope Film John Arran says he thinks much of the route would just not have been possible to aid and must have involved sections of E4/5 free climbing.
Well that's speculation on Arran's part (Drummond was an expert and innovative aider) and also not quite the same thing as saying Drummond free climbed all except the final pitch which is what diff says explicitly. How was it written up by Drummond at the time?
So the summarise the thread so far - this recent ascent was in similar poor style to the last guy's ascent and barely any better than another couple of parties who'd frigged their way up the cliff some time ago. Everyone agrees it's soft at the grade and ripe for a proper on-sight go.
I didn't have time to read all the posts but I think I've got a good sense of where we're at from the ones I did read.
> So the summarise the thread so far - this recent ascent was in similar poor style to the last guy's ascent and barely any better than another couple of parties who'd frigged their way up the cliff some time ago. Everyone agrees it's soft at the grade and ripe for a proper on-sight go.
We really need a "like" button.
More seriously, an interesting (to me) point coming out of this is the emphasis on subsequent ascents of hard routes such as this needing to improve on style. It's often been said in the past but I am not sure I agree (what's wrong a with 'simple' repeat?) and it will be interesting to see what Ben, Caff and the others say of their own ascent (note they have yet to comment in person).
> (In reply to mattrm)
> [...]
>
> By all accounts it's a harrowing descent. It certainly looks it from the ferry. I think there's a suggestion that some of the steps, normally abseiled, might be impossible to get back up. So be careful out there!
>
> I know some people, include the FAs of Testament to the Insane, took a boat to the beach at the bottom.
The descent isn't that hard. Grassy scrambling and one abseil. The abseil used to have an insitu rope that you could jumar back up if need be. I don't know if the insitu rope is still there.
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth)
>
> Yes, but I think the gentleman had a point that 'second free ascent' would have been a nicer way of describing this (characteristically impressive) effort.
>
> jcm
Absolutely. I've no idea why it couldn't simply have been described as the 'second free ascent', as you say. There's also something very weird, touchy, post-modern, politically correct etc. about feeling unhappy about the term 'improvement'. Ed Drummond more or less says in the movie that Macleod's ascent is an improvement, and is full of wonder for the modern purer techniques that Macleod is using. Little example with myself: I first led Ivy Sepulchre in 1969 with two pegs for aid (as per guidebook), and then did it again in 1983 (as per guidebook) with no aid at all. That, to me, was a vast improvement in every sense: first, in terms of personal climbing ability; second, in terms of the route - i.e. it really is about a hundred times better in its totally free form.
> (In reply to csw)
> [...]
>
> I don't think MacLeod's ascent was necessarily an improvement on previous ascents, and that's no bad thing! As I understand it the original ascent was a real leap into the unknown and a strong contender for hardest, most committing route in the UK at the time.
While Ed and Oliver did the first ascent of The Longhope Route, this was not the first time the face had been climbed, Ed had a good working knowledge of the face from our ascent (with Ed) of The Original Route the previous year. Ed spotted the better lone then and returned to climb it.
I think John Arrans free ascent of Longhope was a breakthrough in climbing on the Hoy sea cliffs as was Mick Fowlers ascent of Big John in the late 80's (has this been repeated yet?
I think James comment at the end of the article
"It's an amazing route, and there are tons of empty crags up here."
Is a telling one, when are some of you kids gonna get up of your arses and climb them.
When we first went there in 1969 apart from TOMOH it was unknown. A true adventure, it still is, Now there is the beginnings of a development but even when I returned to climb TOMOH in 1997 there were still amazing unclimbed lines just waiting to be found, this was in a gully on Rora Head http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=121816
A classic line, ok you have to be used to a bit of loose rock but not much worse than Limestone pioneers, or those used to The Culm, have to face.
In reply to Al Evans: Apart from St Johns and TOMOH I think there are about 3 or 4 routes in the whole of this picture http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=95138
If you were willing to include a bit of grass scrambling you might find a new 1000ft Severe among these cliffs
As mentioned by others, you access the cliff via a gully North of the route itself. Diff, Lukasz and I went down there with Dave and Andy to shoot some extra bits of footage and some stills, and it's definitely an interesting experience going down there.
On the day of Dave's ascent I was tasked with heading down with Dave and Andy to film the start, and then had to 'jog' back up the gully as quick as I could to carry on filming the wide shot. It's basically a very long (400 vertical metres?) gully full of loose rock and fulmars where you use elephant grass as hand holds. Makes for an interesting day out in itself, and fascinating to think that it's likely that fewer people have stood on the rocky bay below St John's than have stood on the summit of Everest!
> Makes for an interesting day out in itself, and fascinating to think that it's likely that fewer people have stood on the rocky bay below St John's than have stood on the summit of Everest!
nice story, though I daresay fewer people have stood in my local newsagents than the summit of everest in recent times
I don't know if Mick & I were very lucky in our choice of descent, but it really wasn't that complex. We had no indications of the best way: just went from the bothy to St Johns Head. Looked over: thought we're definitely not abbing... Carried on approx 300m, thought let's try that, and scrambled down a steep gully. I seem to remember some steep downclimbing at one point, but nothing serious.
Al definitely has a point: there's vast amounts to be done up there - get to it!
In reply to shark: Everytime time the climb is mentioned Ed climbed it with less aid. Soon he will have done the first free ascent! He actually used as much aid as was necessary given the conditions of gales and cold and drizzle and mist, plus boots and lots of clothes. The original intent was to climb the wall as a Yosemite type Grade 6. So aid was used where it was hard or could be got in. If easier or not available then he free climbed occasionally using skyhooks. Apart from a few overhangs most of the aid was on our second to last pitch finger crack. It is unlikely any moves over UK5c were done, but some of these would have been done in E something situations, as indicated by JA and DT. In a way it was really like an extension of Avon climbing of '60s eg The Equator, where you had to climb and hammer in your own protection, but a couple of E grades harder, it being 6 years later with extra acquired strength and experience, the normal progression. From my point of view some of the traverses were quite engaging as Ed kept the skyhooks. Dave Ms more direct line has avoided some of these traverses:The Limbo Traverse, The Forever Traverse, The Hairy Traverse. These required some downclimbing but at least I had a rope to follow. I hope at least one of the recent parties did at least the Forever Traverse as that was the most focussed move I have climbed before or since, though I am sure nowadays it will be really easy, see my topo in UKC LHR description/logbook.
> (In reply to Michael Gordon)
> [...]
>
> While Ed and Oliver did the first ascent of The Longhope Route, this was not the first time the face had been climbed, Ed had a good working knowledge of the face from our ascent (with Ed) of The Original Route the previous year. Ed spotted the better lone then and returned to climb it.
> I think John Arrans free ascent of Longhope was a breakthrough in climbing on the Hoy sea cliffs as was Mick Fowlers ascent of Big John in the late 80's (has this been repeated yet?
> I think James comment at the end of the article
> "It's an amazing route, and there are tons of empty crags up here."
> Is a telling one, when are some of you kids gonna get up of your arses and climb them.
> When we first went there in 1969 apart from TOMOH it was unknown. A true adventure, it still is, Now there is the beginnings of a development but even when I returned to climb TOMOH in 1997 there were still amazing unclimbed lines just waiting to be found, this was in a gully on Rora Head
> http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=121816
> A classic line, ok you have to be used to a bit of loose rock but not much worse than Limestone pioneers, or those used to The Culm, have to face.
Thanks Al. It's an amazing place. When I did the Old Man we also took a walk along the top of the cliffs south of Rackwick for a look see. I think the general verdict was loose, birdy and hard - perhaps no surprise there!
The Berry cliffs also look very impressive from the ferry.
In reply to UKC News: This might be of interest to some of you folk. The first part of my blog about trying the long hope route on the same trip as Caff and Ben.