Alum pot extra P hangers

Babyhagrid

Well-known member
Does anybody know anything about the extra P hangers that are in Alum pot ,
I saw one on the right hand wall of the wet slope you walk down from the shortest pitch down.

And also I saw an alternative route for rigging the bottom pitch, with a traverse on the left wall to a high Y hang

As well with the Topo for the bottom pitch it misses out two P hangers that form the traverse line to the Y hang

Is there any reason these aren't on the Topo?
 

Samouse1

Active member
I’ve got a feeling the Alum pot topo update is being worked on by the lovely folks at CNCC, because of these bits I’d imagine!
 

IanWalker

Active member
Hello @Babyhagrid

I am part-way through redrafting the CNCC topo for Alum Pot and Long Churn. As you say, there are some deficiencies in the topo. Other users have submitted comments via the CNCC website and these are being included in the revision. I would be grateful if you could message below, or PM me, with your topo suggestions. A sketch is most useful, but text comments are fine too. Thanks in advance if you choose to contribute in this way.

You mention a hanger in the gully, I know there is one and assume it is for protecting the climb down to the last pitch. There is an alternative to the Greasy Slab (on the right wall) and alternative to the last pitch (on the left wall). From memory, here are some blotches showing these and other issue:

1711637684661.png
 

rm128

Active member
Last time I was down there, we couldn't find anywhere for the highlighted deviation on the 40m rope. This leads to pretty bad rope rub near the top of the pitch.
 

IanWalker

Active member
Last time I was down there, we couldn't find anywhere for the highlighted deviation on the 40m rope. This leads to pretty bad rope rub near the top of the pitch.
Thanks - that is why it is highlighted.

I am interested to know whether you chose to descend anyway? Or use the adjacent route(s)? Or abandon your trip?
 

rm128

Active member
Thanks - that is why it is highlighted.

I am interested to know whether you chose to descend anyway? Or use the adjacent route(s)? Or abandon your trip?
We descended anyway, with several of us convinced that we would be the one to find the elusive deviation. I chose not to go down the last pitch. The idea was that I would ascend the pitch without the deviation and re-rig on the other side of the bridge, where I know there is a deviation. But, being a complete plonker, I forgot to untie the rope from the hanger highlighted in red on your topo at the bottom of the 40m rope. So I couldn't re-rig. In the end we all ascended the 40m rope without a deviation. A very careful check of the rope afterward revealed that there was no noticeable damage.
 

andrewmcleod

Well-known member
Thanks - that is why it is highlighted.

I am interested to know whether you chose to descend anyway? Or use the adjacent route(s)? Or abandon your trip?
Last time I tried that I couldn't find a deviation, went back up and went down a different route.
 

DaveyDubz

New member
Had a trip down the NW route yesterday. The 2 best positioned trees at the top (where it looked like the route was meant to go) didn't look very lively, however using 2 nearby trees (a bit closer to the stile) it was perfectly doable. If it helps your numbers then 20m took me exactly to bolt 32 and the 63m I had was more than sufficient for the long hang.
I would hazard a guess that the LW route at the bottom is a 30m rope, but without rigging it who knows.
 

CNCC

Well-known member
Thanks for this thread folks!

We are aware that in Alum Pot (and numerous others) there are CNCC-type anchors, usually the older type P-hangers, that are not shown on our topos. In many cases these anchors may have been installed by former installers (potentially in the 1990s/2000s) but just not reported, or accidently omitted from the topo when they were being drawn up. They may have been installed after the original topo was first published.

In other situations, the anchor might not be CNCC-installed. However, if it is of appropriate quality and offers significant benefits to cavers being made aware of it, we do now have the flexibility to show it on our topos (with a different symbol) following a recent policy change.

Finally, we also receive occasional news of anchors being missing, or natural belays being unable to be found.

Ian, who has posted above, is very kindly helping us to help review potholes where we receive reports of erroneous topos, an we are extremely grateful for his help with this :)

Please continue to report any observations to us via the appropriate function:


Although we might not be able to look into each report individually or immediately, they are all acknowledged (if you don't receive an email to acknowledge your report within a couple of weeks, please email our Secretary who can forward it onto the right people). Generally, the more information you can provide, the better.

Potholes which are repeat offenders, or where there is an immediate hazard, are prioritised for volunteer attention.
 

andrewmcleod

Well-known member
Out of curiosity, does the CNCC intend for every CNCC-installed anchor to be shown on a topo (or at least described) on the CNCC web page?

I know of at least two locations with IC anchors that have no CNCC topos (namely the Dome Alternative in Lost Johns, and Upper Trident in County Pot) that can't be that old (since they are IC anchors). I wouldn't be surprised if there are more knocking around. It would seem to me to be a reasonable policy that anchor installations are always accompanied by a topo or description as a requirement for installers?
 

hannahb

Active member
@andrewmcleod, in short it's a work in progress.

Longer version:
Why do you say that anchors should always have topos? Not having a topo does not stop you going and enjoying the trip. They're certainly very useful, but they're a luxury rather than a right. They're surveyed, drawn, and digitised by volunteers (not necessarily the same volunteers who install anchors) and it all takes time and favourable weather. Installing anchors takes ages and to draw a topo at the same time might turn it into a task no-one has time for.
 

hannahb

Active member
@andrewmcleod, in short it's a work in progress.

Longer version:
Why do you say that anchors should always have topos? Not having a topo does not stop you going and enjoying the trip. They're certainly very useful, but they're a luxury rather than a right. They're surveyed, drawn, and digitised by volunteers (not necessarily the same volunteers who install anchors) and it all takes time and favourable weather. Installing anchors takes ages and to draw a topo at the same time might turn it into a task no-one has time for.
Just been informed you're an anchor installer, sorry for preaching what you already know. I take back my comment about it being too hefty a job, too :)
 

andrewmcleod

Well-known member
@andrewmcleod, in short it's a work in progress.

Longer version:
Why do you say that anchors should always have topos? Not having a topo does not stop you going and enjoying the trip. They're certainly very useful, but they're a luxury rather than a right. They're surveyed, drawn, and digitised by volunteers (not necessarily the same volunteers who install anchors) and it all takes time and favourable weather. Installing anchors takes ages and to draw a topo at the same time might turn it into a task no-one has time for.
As a (very recent) anchor installer (not with the CNCC) I am aware that installing resin anchors is a fairly substantial faff, as is returning to the installation location later, rigging it, derigging it, and then measuring all the rope lengths...

However, the BCA paid for those anchors and it seems a bit silly to put them in and then not tell anyone they are there; only really ends up benefiting the installers and people 'in the know'. I want as many people as possible to know about the anchors I have put in so that cavers can go and use them.

Obviously this is a massively harder job for the CNCC who have masses of anchor locations to keep track of, yet despite this they manage to do a generally better job of publicising their anchor installations than any other regional council (other than possibly DCA) so credit is definitely due! I'm not expecting them to immediately draw up topos for all the anchors that got put in in the past without topos, but hoping that we can get topos for all new installations (and that would be good for all the other regional councils to stick to as well).

Stuff like the new topos for Cow Pot is great though :)
 

IanWalker

Active member
I do not speak for the CNCC, and I'm sure someone with relevant authority will be along shortly to explain their position. That being said, it is my thinking that as a general rule, all CNCC-installed anchors should have an accompanying CNCC topo. This is one of the reasons I chose to volunteer in drawing them up for some locations where topos are lacking. I have benefitted from such work done by others in the past, and would like to help benefit others in the same way. On the other hand, free online topos are a privilege, not a right, and are not required by the BCA or CNCC scheme.

There is a reporting mechanism for topo errors, highlighted above, which is included with the rigging topos. I would be interested if you submitted any report for the locations you refer to. If not, with respect, might I ask why? (I am interested in reasons why people know about issues but do not report them). What would encourage you to make such a report?

Also, if there are reasons for NOT producing a topo, I would be interested to hear them.
 

CNCC

Well-known member
We agree that all CNCC-installed anchors should usually be depicted on an associated topo.

There may be a few exceptions, e.g. Dr Bannisters Handbasin in Long Churn, where a CNCC anchor provides a handline belay (along with backup around the large boulder), but an entire topo just for that might be deemed 'excessive' and just a verbal mention in our accompanying route description is probably sufficient.

With the Upper Trident climb/pitch in County Pot, the installers of these anchors performed this work to replace some poor condition spits on this increasingly popular route. However, as there was no County Pot topo to add these too, they were never reported on a topo, however, they are detailed in our route description instead as a compromise.

Another example is Valley Entrance Roof Tunnel; At the time these anchors were installers there would have been no Valley Entrance topo and it would have hardly seemed worth a dedicated topo for one 7m pitch. Just a mention in descriptions/guidebooks has always been sufficient.

(There is now a topo for Valley Entrance Toyland route, so this could be adapted to also show or mention the Roof Tunnel Pitch).

We don't really know why a County Pot topo was never published in days gone by; we guess because there are so few pitches, which are all short and separated (and many cavers choosing to ladder the County first pitch too), that the feeling was that just detailing them in a route description/guidebook was sufficient here too. We don't really have a stance on whether this was a right or wrong decision.

However, we are pleased to say that a topo for County Pot is now in preparation and will be published soon (thanks Ian) :)

Regarding the Dome Alternative in Lost Johns' Cave, we are not familiar enough with these anchors to draw a topo without someone going to inspect this (similarly, the Acrobat Series in Notts Pot, and the P-anchors throughout Dale Head Pot, which appear to be CNCC anchors but we have no topo for). It may be that the installers simply undertook these projects without ever getting round to drawing up an associated topo. We strongly encourage installers to do this, but we cannot force anyone, and of course, the anchor scheme has been around for about 30 years now during which time numerous installers have come and gone.

Broadly, these are minority situations, and the number of completely new topos we have published just in the last four years following work by our installer team speaks volumes to our committment to publish topos for the anchors we install:
  • Valley Entrance Toyland
  • Growling Hole
  • Broken Finger Pot
  • Newby Moss Cave
  • Mayday Hole
  • Scanty Lardos Pot
  • Curtain Pot
  • Pasture Gill Pot
  • F'ing Hopeless Pot
  • Five Ways Pot
Not to mention numerous updates to existing topos following anchor replacements or additions.

As has been mentioned above, if you see any anchors which appear to be CNCC (i.e. stainless steel resin bonded P-type or IC-type) which are not on a topo, and you think they should be, then let us know using the above reporting forms. Likewise, if you spot any topo errors, let us know. The size of our region, and the enormous number of anchors we have installed over the last 30 years means we rely on your help to bring these things to our attention so that we can ask our volunteers to then go and check these things out.

Andrew, thank you for reporting these via the official channels, you should have email replies to both of your reports :)
 

langcliffe

Well-known member
The rigging for Acrobat Pot, De Profundis, the Notts Pot entrance alternative, and Aquamole Alternative were all reported to the CNCC together with the bolt numbers. The routes were published on the Braemoor website as an interim measure.
 

CNCC

Well-known member
Thanks Langcliffe. We don't really know why a topo was never drawn for these if you reported them and sent a topo for us to draw up. We assume this could have been at a time when we were having some turnover of the team... and this just never got actioned for some reason. Would you mind dropping us a PM, or emailing pr@cncc.org.uk so we can discuss this offline, if you are still amenable to these routes becoming CNCC-published topos (we are conscious that your own site is an excellent resource too).
 

langcliffe

Well-known member
Thanks Langcliffe. We don't really know why a topo was never drawn for these if you reported them and sent a topo for us to draw up. We assume this could have been at a time when we were having some turnover of the team... and this just never got actioned for some reason. Would you mind dropping us a PM, or emailing pr@cncc.org.uk so we can discuss this offline, if you are still amenable to these routes becoming CNCC-published topos (we are conscious that your own site is an excellent resource too).
Graham was the official bolter, and it was he who passed on the details.
 
Top