Halls Old Grove Mine - Eldon Explorations

[Pete K]

Assuming Petzl hangers and through bolts here. The price has plummeted. Box of 20 stainless about ?40
http://www.abaris.co.uk/prod/anchors/Petzl-Coeur-Stainless-Steel-Hanger-Plate-10mm-20-Pack.htm
I'll buy a box for you guys if you decide to leave them in.

 

[Mark Wright]

Best be quick as all Petzl products are set to increase by 12% on the 1st July.

Mark

 

[Pete K]

Good to know! Shame as I was enjoying the mild surprise on quotes recently.

 

[Rob]

Pete, that's an awesome offer, both from you and from that site! Yes, it's all through bolts, some are even stainless. However all are 8mm bolts, which Abaris don't seem to do?

 

[Pete K]

Is it rigged on 8mm spit type sleeves then or have you combined 8mm through bolts with hanger plates?
10mm steel plates would fit over the 8mm studs or more simply, leave what it is in there in and add the crowd sourced replacements to your store for the next project.

Sorry, re read your last. Are the plates the 8mm alloy type ones with the bolt removed to allow through bolts or are they something different?

 

[Madness]

I agree with Pete K. There must be enough Peak Cavers who are prepared to throw a few quid into the pot.

 

[Rob]

...Sorry, re read your last. Are the plates the 8mm alloy type ones with the bolt removed to allow through bolts or are they something different?

Yes, they are all 8mm twist and spoon hangers (mostly aluminium) on 8mm through bolts. If we leave gear in we'd definitely remove all aluminium hardware...

 

[Madness]

Are the through bolts stainless or zinc plated?

 

[Madness]

Just a thought. Can the cost of gear be claimed back from the BCA?

 

[Jenny P]

If the bolting is done using a BCA approved system of BP bolts and approved regional installers (or the new CNCC anchors), then BCA would supply the bolts and the resin necessary at no charge.

 

[Pete K]

We went, we saw, we ran away in fear...
What a cracking mine that is but by god is it sketchy down there. Echoing the previous posts, we had a near miss or two on the 3rd pitch and whist gathering in between the next 2 traverses a couple of us had small stuff falling onto us from the false floor above, even with no one anywhere near it. At that point we bailed as we'd seen enough and had to get a mate home for 5pm.

The trip is brilliant and well worth seeing but I'm now not sure how I'd leave it if I was in your shoes.
1. Safest bet is to derig it and that's that but a lot of your effort will be lost.
2. Resin bolting it will make things a load safer, as you say it really is exploration ringing and the small anchors all needed doing up again today, with at least one working its way well out the rock. Problem with nice anchors is that it makes it a 'regular trip venue' and it really is not a safe place for that kind of trip.
3. Replace the hangers with stainless and leave a minimum of rope in there where it is essential from a crowdsourcing type deal and then it is not really rigged, not impassable though and will be available for the future without the massive work.

You guys should have a chat about it in-house as it's your kit but if you want my opinion, it'll never be a new Maskhill etc... As it's just too dodgy down there. That said, it'd be a shame to derig everything making future trips unlikely. You never know, it may be an important link to somewhere in future. The people going down it really do need to know exactly what they're doing, not just follow the resin bolts.

Great effort on this trip guys, really glad I saw it. Thanks for being so open about it and allowing us to have a look before whatever you decide happens.

 

[pwhole]

Pete

***** just up the rake is safer (though still dodgy), and is massive, complex, has very important natural, and is still largely unexplored in the higher levels. We've rarely mentioned it on here, as it's the same situation with ****, and would be much worse to lose this one. Martyn had it as his project, and he kind of stiffed it after a while, which was a drag, as I was having the time of my life working in that one. I'm trying to persuade him to get back into it, but in the meantime, I would very much like to go back for a quick shufty if you fancy it? Too much to do in one trip unless you spend eight-ten hours in there, but there's plenty of really nice stuff in there. Just don't mention it on here! I have written up much of our previous explorations for the Journal, so all will be revealed then, but I can email you some photo galleries.

To be honest, I was always baffled why Rob had posted all this, as the ****** Symposium pretty much agreed on 'no publicity' for ******* mines, not least because of the landowner issues, but also as many of them are very dodgy, as you've now seen, and 'regulation' SRT won't necessarily help! But much has solid roof in there, so it's a lot better.

Phil.

 

[mch]

Just don't mention it on here!

??? Might have been better to PM Pete!

 

[AR]

Ask Sam to do a spot of editing....

 

[Rob]

Glad you enjoyed and survived the trip Pete! Shame you didn't see most of it, hopefully another time if we can sort out some extended access...

Mentioning the site online is and interesting topic. I'm not really one for keeping sites secret from cavers, if I can avoid it. The main thing that has meant i'm comfortable to mention this mine so openly on here is that I've never said where is it (other than lat/long), nor who's land it is, nor really where it's near. Therefore no inquiring google search will flag this thread up, especially as nobody knows the name Halls Old Grove before we got involved.

We publicised in Descent as soon as explorations and the survey were finished, to record the site forever. Maybe a little risk there, but we still didn't say where it was, and some might say that record is more important than the short term keeping of access to a site kept secret to all but a privileged few?

[Can someone please edit out any mentions above to *****, *****, ***** and *********.]

 

[pwhole]

Whoops, that was a slip-up, sorry. Too many cloaks and daggers too juggle at the moment. If someone could edit out those names it would be appreciated. I do appreciate the good work done here, and not trying to put a downer on it at all. But my recent chat with the landowner convinced me that he was 'possibly' amenable to visits in the future, as long as any requests were put through him. Sadly the first request was then refused! And he asked that folks don't go up until he'd taken further advice from his legal team, which no doubt would be 'don't'. I have heard that some behind-the-scenes negotiations have been done, but have no idea on progress.

So I don't really know where we go with this area long-term, as obviously some of the land is public access and some isn't. Most of the time the sites are abandoned, and having more cavers around is IMO a good idea, as we're generally considerate land-users, and spot security and environmental issues others might not. There's so much up there to document and explore in terms of mine heritage and speleology, but as pointed out by Pete and Rob, much of it is so dangerous that it feels a risk to have visits to all, as the landowner's fears could become realised. I wouldn't say it was privileged access, just sensible, as there's always loads of new sites to find. It's just that I occasionally bump into (and hear about) folks doing SRT who plainly don't have much of a clue what they're doing, and that's just in easy safe sites - in one of these mines it could be disastrous.

 

[Rob]

After much debating, a team of us derigged it all last night.

Thanks to those who lent the project gear, especially the Nobles...