Caves and rain - crowdsourcing the numbers

blackholesun

New member
Hi,

How useful do people think it is to rate caves on how appropriate they are to do after rain?

I've had my own list for a while and it's saved me and clubs I've been in time (and possibly some hairy trips) by providing a way to quickly narrow down what caves would be suitable. Obviously, I'm not going to go to a cave in a thunderstorm solely based on a rating of 1 for its tendency to flood, but I'd read the book description of it and ask others about it. If it's got a rating of 5 though, then I'm not going to be visiting!

However, my list is limited, probably pretty inaccurate and, well, there's plenty of caves on there that I've never visited, let alone multiple times after a variety of rainfall. A list that had many contributors would be much more reliable.

If you think it would be useful for the caving community to have such a list, and you have time, then please contribute on the spreadsheet linked to below:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CojMgwxdxDzaD3_f7A0akiTazmyGZgTJBDvPaKLE4VQ/edit#gid=0
 

blackholesun

New member
I've only added caves for the Dales at this point, but feel free to add other caves in other regions or insert more caves in the Dales section.

Also, yes, this is a publicly editable spreadsheet and so easily vandalised, but I'll back it up regularly so I'm optimistic that no responses will get lost.
 

blackholesun

New member
Thanks for the link. It's certainly a good list and I'll add it to the spreadsheet at some point. However, some of it seems dubious. Rowten is a 1 and King Pot is a 3? Is Swinsto really deserving of a 4? I always felt that Stream Passage Pot was safer in wet conditions that Flood Entrance, as with enough deviations you can be largely out of the water, whereas the main hang in Flood is unavoidably wet in high water conditions. I certainly wouldn't rate Flood Entrance as more suitable in the wet than King.

The main reason for this though, is that I hope it can go further and cover more caves and more trips within them than the Eurospeleo guide.
 

alastairgott

Well-known member
It's all a bit subjective, without people to help interpret the wet weather ratings, it might be more likely to fall down.

I guess the idea of having people behind the reception of Hidden earth was one way of interpreting the grades (even though when I was behind there I was probably as much use as an air freshener in a sewer) but still I knew people I could ask.

W.S. Or B.(H)S. it was good to see you at the weekend, but I'm unsure where this is going to go to be useful without being a well meaning Hazard of subjectivity.
 

mikem

Well-known member
As long as it's only used as a starting point for deciding where to go, rather than the be all & (possibly) end all...

I suppose it also depends where you turn around, King Pot is graded for a trip to the end & the Swinsto grading is for exiting via Valley Entrance or exchanging with Simpson's, where you have to enter the lower streamways. The Flood entrance description is actually using Wade's, which is presumably safer than Flood?

Mike
 

blackholesun

New member
Yeah, its intended as a starting point for deciding what description to read or who to ask.

Deciding what trip to do based solely on the ratings of some person on the internet would be about as mad as doing a climbing route with knowledge only of the grade, without knowing who graded it, or having a description, or even looking at the crag.

It can get damp in the bottom of King, sure, but it's possibly the classic wet weather hard trip in the Dales, which doesn't quite square with a middle rating. I've never been in the original Flood entrance, but I've been on a club trip in GG when there was heavy rain and the people exiting Flood were colder and unhappier than those of us leaving via Stream, due to the final pitch becoming very wet.

It was good to see you too, Al. I hope this could become a resource that offers a little more comparative detail than "Entrances pitches become wet and possibly impassable after wet weather", or variations of this, listed for every single cave in the guidebook.
 

mikem

Well-known member
I haven't done Flood/Wade's & only been in Stream Passage when dry, but can imagine once Stream does start to overflow it becomes impassable, whilst maybe Wade's is still useable though wet?

Mike
 

Fulk

Well-known member
For what it's worth, I remember derigging Flood (well, Wade's) Entrance on one CPC winch meet after moderate rain, and getting absolutely piss wet through on the final pitch (we couldn't just pull the rope up on account of the rebelays); the rest of the cave was OK.

We figured that we'd had a better time than the Stream Passage Pot deriggers (who had been underground at pretty much the same time), but when we met them later they said that it had been OK in SPP.

I have, however, seen a picture of SPP entrance looking like a whirlpool ? totally full of swirling water.

Any such list can at best be a starting point, not a definitive statement.
 

caving_fox

Active member
While we're never going to achieve an absolute measure, people's experience of rain, and the degree of wetness the party can cope with on pitches being very variable, it would be great to have some consistency between ratings at the least.

As an example
I've seen very variable reports for Juniper Gulf. Selected Caves has it as fine in wet weather, use the entrance traverse. The new northern caves has it as avoid unless settled. That's very contrasting (selected caves is correct in this instance by my experience although the final pitch was very wet only at the bottom).

But some kind of advice would help more trips go ahead.
 

Simon Wilson

New member
There are many things to consider when making a risk assessment. I would say Juniper can be done in most conditions but only by competent cavers. That's the problem - the most important factor is the competence of the cavers who need to be able to make judgements on the spot.
 

mrodoc

Well-known member
I am sure Mr. Radon would have something to say about Juniper Gulf having been stuck down there for many hours after a flood 50 years ago.
 

mikem

Well-known member
No, it's in the CNCC description.

Another problem is some caves flood immediately the rain starts, others don't fill up until hours later & although the rain may be light where you are (even if you are at the entrance), localised storms can be much heavier in the catchment.

The kayaking whitewater grading works on exactly the same premise - at a sensible water level the river will be about "this" standard & usually they are easier when low, harder when high, but some are still passable at flood stage. Similarly, some caves are still doable whilst wet, others (like Stream Passage Pot) may become impassable, so should a point be added to their grade to reflect this (thus adding a factor for consequences - you will still need to look at the description to find this out)?

Maybe reducing the number of options will make it actually more useful-
0 - unlikely to flood
1 - avoid in heavy/prolonged rain
2 - avoid in moderate conditions
3 - avoid in any rain

Mike
 

Pitlamp

Well-known member
One of the main variables is the time of year. A gauge reading of over 25 mm in July may have no effect whatsoever on cave streams. In the winter I've known just 5 mm in the gauge to be associated with very significant rises in flow.

Extensive personal caving experience, combined with obtaining a consensus of local knowledge, will generally make for the most meaningful assessment of underground conditions. As ever, the best policy is to err on the safe side.
 

damian

Active member
Interesting thread. When I put together the SRT and the Wet-weather grades for EuroSpeleo, I was expecting it to be followed by quite a lot of controversy, but I don't recall anybody saying anything negative. I was really surprised, if for no other reason than I put together the grades without really consulting anybody else. The really tricky but, as others have said, is that it is so variable - there are many different trips you can do within many caves; different caves respond at different speeds and for differing lengths of time; some leave an impassable section when flooding but you can probably safely sit it out, whereas others flood catastrophically leaving nowhere to sit it out. Tricky but worth doing - provided the grades err on the side of caution when necessary.
 

Pitlamp

Well-known member
Another difficulty is that caves change.

Some forum members might remember when a party was overdue in the GG system several years ago, leading to a search (firstly by the club running that winch meet, later supported by a full CRO call out). It turned out they were flooded in beyond the Font duck, which had sumped. There were many people in camp that night who knew the Whitsun Series very well; all were very surprised by the reason for that incident.

What worries me is to what extent less experienced cavers might rely on what may come to be regarded as definitive information, if they lack the knowledge to interpret it adequately. Some fairly strongly worded statement (maybe even on every page?) along the lines of it being guidance for the wise rather than for the obedience of fools, might be appropriate. But if it was me writing it I think I'd steer clear of using unfriendly words such as "fools" and perhaps instead refer to "less experienced cavers".
 

blackholesun

New member
Ah, I was wondering who it was that did the EuroSpeleo guide. Thanks for doing that Damian, AFAIK its the only numerical guide to any caves in the UK! If one could be produced that covered more caves and more regions, it could be a widely used document.

My comments were me wondering whether some of the grades might change if more people contributed to it. I certainly agree that its both tricky and worth doing, which is what I was attempting to do here.

Mike, perhaps a 4 point scale could have been better. My original ratings were on a 4 point scale, which is why everything starts at a 2 on the spreadsheet. I thought giving numbers from 0-5 might add finer resolution once people's scores were averaged.

Pitlamp, I wouldn't worry about listing lots of caveats! No one has responded (well, one person added 4 entries then deleted 3 of them), so I don't think any of this is going anywhere.



 

alastairgott

Well-known member
blackholesun said:
AFAIK its the only numerical guide to any caves in the UK!

York did have one for a while, but it's been relegated to the depths of internet history.  :( :( :(


I really enjoyed the sometime serious and sometimes very silly ratings they got (in the style of BoatymcBoatface). There were four ratings I seem to remember but can't exactly remember the ratings  :confused: oh well, silly times!


I doubt Gardouth has kept the many megabites of rubbish we used to chat! Great host.
 

MarkS

Moderator
alastairgott said:
blackholesun said:
AFAIK its the only numerical guide to any caves in the UK!

York did have one for a while, but it's been relegated to the depths of internet history.  :( :( :(


I really enjoyed the sometime serious and sometimes very silly ratings they got (in the style of BoatymcBoatface). There were four ratings I seem to remember but can't exactly remember the ratings  :confused: oh well, silly times!


I doubt Gardouth has kept the many megabites of rubbish we used to chat! Great host.

Faff, Scum, Hardcore and Change each had a rating of 1 - 5 I think. Hugely subjective, trip/team/weather dependent, and not very useful, but I always found it entertaining!

Anyway, back on topic, I think it would be useful and I'll contribute if I find the time. I think in the context that blackholesun mentioned above (an addition to comments like "some pitches may become very wet or impassable in flood") it could be a very valuable resource.
 
Top