Concreting Drws Cefn

[graham]

Aah, much like Garden Path in Lathkill Head, at the request of the landowner this is access restricted for research and scientific study puposes only, neither DCA nor any other body have any intentions of sealing it in any way. This section of the system is accessible via other routes but not easy.

Are you sure that Garden Path isn't on CRoW access land? 'cos if it is then Tim Dick & Harry will be along demanding it's opened up before long.

 

[droid]

Drws Cefn is far from being redundant and there is every need for it to remain open in order to help realise the full potential of the cave. Up until now it has hardly been utilised to even a miniscule fraction of its capacity. Exploration has scarcely begun, never mind being completed. This is precisely why the controlling clique of the PDCMG are so opposed to Drws Cefn as an entrance and are determined to see it obliterated from the face of the landscape for all eternity.

Are you saying (or implying) that PDCMG are deliberately making exploration more difficult?

Bizarre.....

 

[Brains]

From an outsiders viewpoint, I would say yes, that is the perception I have

 

[Rhys]

Are you saying (or implying) that PDCMG are deliberately making exploration more difficult?

I'm pretty sure that is not the intention of PDCMG. However, it may well be a side-effect of the single entrance policy.

Rhys

 

[martinm]

From an outsiders viewpoint, I would say yes, that is the perception I have

Same here. It could be said the original entrance isn't required any more, esp. as it is batproof (like many other cave entrances in the area I have recently learned). Find out who owns the land which Drws Cefn is on, (CRoW land as it is registered common land), negotiate a nice caver friendly access agreement, install a bat friendly simply bolted shut gate and jobs a good 'un.

Exploration and surveying can then continue without all the politics. 

However, it may well be a side-effect of the single entrance policy.
Rhys

Yep.

 

[Rhys]

Same here. It could be said the original entrance isn't required any more, esp. as it is batproof (like many other cave entrances in the area I have recently learned). Find out who owns the land which Drws Cefn is on, (CRoW land as it is registered common land), negotiate a nice caver friendly access agreement, install a bat friendly simply bolted shut gate and jobs a good 'un.

Exploration and surveying can then continue without all the politics. 

If only it were so simple! A few clarifications:

All the present entrances, blocked or otherwise are owned by the same landowner.

Taking the original entrance out of use would hinder exploration in other parts of the cave such as the northern extremes and the southern end of the main streamway.

My understanding is that the blocked second (Nunnery) entrance was never an open entrance which bats could use. It was just a smooth soil hillside. I may be wrong on this though. I think it was the Cambrian CC conservation officer who first dug it, so he may be able to confirm.

I was always led to believe that non-bat friendly gate of the original entrance was not an issue because there is a bat friendly entrance a few metres away around the corner from it.

Rhys

 

[martinm]

If only it were so simple! A few clarifications:

All the present entrances, blocked or otherwise are owned by the same landowner.

Taking the original entrance out of use would hinder exploration in other parts of the cave such as the northern extremes and the southern end of the main streamway.

My understanding is that the blocked second (Nunnery) entrance was never an open entrance which bats could use. It was just a smooth soil hillside. I may be wrong on this though. I think it was the Cambrian CC conservation officer who first dug it, so he may be able to confirm.

I was always led to believe that non-bat friendly gate of the original entrance was not an issue because there is a bat friendly entrance a few metres away around the corner from it.

Rhys

OK, fair points Rhys, but in which case why was Nunnery fitted with a bat hole!  I have been told that underneath the turf there is several inches of concrete on top of a locked gate with a 4x4 inch hole in it with a drop underneath it , all specifically for bats to use, albeit totally inadequate for it's intended purpose. (See my photo upthread for a decent bat friendly gate.)  :-\

PDCMG have said they can unblock it if was required to facilitate a rescue. If they'd have just installed a proper bat friendly gate on it, they could have just undone a padlock instead of having to dig back through all the concrete, etc.

 

[Rhys]

OK, fair points Rhys, but in which case why was Nunnery fitted with a bat hole!  I have been told that underneath the turf there is several inches of concrete on top of a locked gate with a 4x4 inch hole in it with a drop underneath it , all specifically for bats to use, albeit totally inadequate for it's intended purpose. (See my photo upthread for a decent bat friendly gate.)  :-\

PDCMG have said they can unblock it if was required to facilitate a rescue. If they'd have just installed a proper bat friendly gate on it, they could have just undone a padlock instead of having to dig back through all the concrete, etc.

Again, it all sounds very sensible and simple, the reality is much more complex...

I think cavers were probably far less aware of what was and what wasn't bat-friendly than they are today. I can't recall whether the Nunnery gate was the design of PDCMG (or its forerunner organisation) or the people who dug the entrance open. Either way, after use of the Nunnery entrance was forbidden, a simple gate with a padlock proved inadequate at preventing break-ins. A period of lock chopping, swapping and sabotage occurred before a more "semi-permanent" solution was employed.

 

[NigR]

Drws Cefn is far from being redundant and there is every need for it to remain open in order to help realise the full potential of the cave. Up until now it has hardly been utilised to even a miniscule fraction of its capacity. Exploration has scarcely begun, never mind being completed. This is precisely why the controlling clique of the PDCMG are so opposed to Drws Cefn as an entrance and are determined to see it obliterated from the face of the landscape for all eternity.

Are you saying (or implying) that PDCMG are deliberately making exploration more difficult?

Bizarre.....

Yes, that is precisely what I am saying.

(Yes, it is bizarre isn't it? Good to see that you agree with me!)

I'm pretty sure that is not the intention of PDCMG. However, it may well be a side-effect of the single entrance policy.

It is the explicit intention of the PDCMG (or, to be more precise, the controlling OUCC-UBSS-MCC axis) to limit exploration within the cave, especially in one particular direction (i.e. to limit it for anyone other than themselves).

The single entrance policy (although originally at least partly introduced on idealistic conservation and pseudo-aesthetic grounds) is still being used as justification for what they are doing but is now acting purely as a smoke screen to mask their true motives (i.e. to safeguard what they regard as their own prime interests).

This has been the case for a long, long time and pre-dates the discovery of Drws Cefn by a considerable period.

 

[Rhys]

It is the explicit intention of the PDCMG (or, to be more precise, the controlling OUCC-UBSS-MCC axis) to limit exploration within the cave, especially in one particular direction (i.e. to limit it for anyone other than themselves).

Interesting. Please provide an explicit quote or something to back this statement up.

I'll point out that I'm not attempting to argue any particular viewpoint myself, just attempting to introduce some sort of balance. In the interests of a fair debate, an accusation like that really needs substantiating.

Rhys

 

[Andy Sparrow]

There is a compromise solution, one which adheres to the policy of single entrance.  Drws Cefn could be fitted with a gate that only opens from the inside.  That way all access is through the old entrance, subject to the access conditions.  There would be no short cut to vulnerable areas, but there would be an alternative exit.  The rescue option would also exist.

 

[Rhys]

There is a compromise solution, one which adheres to the policy of single entrance.  Drws Cefn could be fitted with a gate that only opens from the inside.  That way all access is through the old entrance, subject to the access conditions.  There would be no short cut to vulnerable areas, but there would be an alternative exit.  The rescue option would also exist.

As a COMPROMISE solution, I think it has merits. Digging trips to the south east areas would have a reduction in overall time and difficulty due to the short cut to get out. Vulnerable areas would be easier to access due to the total trip time to reach them and return to the surface being reduced, but perhaps not to the extent that footfall would massively increase.

Would either camp be happy with this option?

 

[SpeleoTrog]

Would either camp be happy with this option?

The problem is, if they're not, one side has already shown their willingness to remove locks and/or gates. I seem to recall a certain protagonist being found in the area of the Nunnery entrance with the necessary equipment to remove the concrete cap. Whatever kind of compromise is reached will be invalidated by the few who will decide it doesn't apply to them.
Both sides appear to be so deeply entrenched that a true, workable, compromise seems unlikely.

 

[Rhys]

Well, clearly both camps (and landowner) would need to agree to the compromise or it would be a non-starter!

 

[Ian Adams]

Whatever kind of compromise is reached will be invalidated by the few who will decide it doesn't apply to them.
Both sides appear to be so deeply entrenched that a true, workable, compromise seems unlikely.

I think you are right and I think that there are an equal number of the "few" on both sides. I think the "middle ground" is by far the largest demographic.

I have changed my view from "Keep it open" to "Gate it" as MMilner suggested.

Perhaps others might ease up a little too ?

Ian

 

[NigR]

It is the explicit intention of the PDCMG (or, to be more precise, the controlling OUCC-UBSS-MCC axis) to limit exploration within the cave, especially in one particular direction (i.e. to limit it for anyone other than themselves).

Interesting. Please provide an explicit quote or something to back this statement up.

I'll point out that I'm not attempting to argue any particular viewpoint myself, just attempting to introduce some sort of balance. In the interests of a fair debate, an accusation like that really needs substantiating.

I have ample evidence to substantiate what I have said, otherwise I would not have said it.

However, perhaps now is not the best time to place it within the public domain whilst there is any talk of compromise in the air.

Both sides appear to be so deeply entrenched that a true, workable, compromise seems unlikely.

I have changed my view from "Keep it open" to "Gate it" as MMilner suggested.

Perhaps others might ease up a little too ?

OK, here you go.

Personally, I have always preferred that the cave be kept open in its natural state and I have not changed my views on this.

However, both in order to facilitate the reaching of a compromise solution that will benefit all cavers and to ensure that the cave is not permanently sealed, I would happily go along with something along the lines suggested by Mel and agreed by Ian (i.e. the cave is gated, access being administered by use of a "Derbyshire key" with a logbook to record all trips).

Should it be shown at some time in the future that the entrance is being overused, I would not be averse to the fitting of a combination lock so long as the number remained readily available.

Finally, I would prefer that any gate be fitted a little way underground so as not to detract from the natural beauty on the surface. This should not be a problem as there is a sharp dogleg partway down the entrance climb (it is at this point that the bulk of the projected concreting is planned to take place).

 

[Rhys]

However, both in order to facilitate the reaching of a compromise solution that will benefit all cavers and to ensure that the cave is not permanently sealed, I would happily go along with something along the lines suggested by Mel and agreed by Ian (i.e. the cave is gated, access being administered by use of a "Derbyshire key" with a logbook to record all trips).

Should it be shown at some time in the future that the entrance is being overused, I would not be averse to the fitting of a combination lock so long as the number remained readily available.

Finally, I would prefer that any gate be fitted a little way underground so as not to detract from the natural beauty on the surface. This should not be a problem as there is a sharp dogleg partway down the entrance climb (it is at this point that the bulk of the projected concreting is planned to take place).

How about the compromise suggestion put forward by Andy Sparrows whereby Ogof Drws Cefn is used as an exit only? What are you views on that?

 

[NigR]

However, both in order to facilitate the reaching of a compromise solution that will benefit all cavers and to ensure that the cave is not permanently sealed, I would happily go along with something along the lines suggested by Mel and agreed by Ian (i.e. the cave is gated, access being administered by use of a "Derbyshire key" with a logbook to record all trips).

Should it be shown at some time in the future that the entrance is being overused, I would not be averse to the fitting of a combination lock so long as the number remained readily available.

Finally, I would prefer that any gate be fitted a little way underground so as not to detract from the natural beauty on the surface. This should not be a problem as there is a sharp dogleg partway
down the entrance climb (it is at this point that the bulk of the projected concreting is planned to take place).

How about the compromise suggestion put forward by Andy Sparrows whereby Ogof Drws Cefn is used as an exit only? What are you views on that?

The exit only option did indeed come under consideration during our attempted negotiations with the PDCMG (under the auspices of Cambrian Caving Council) five years ago but was quickly dismissed as being of limited usefulness and intrinsically unworkable.

From our own viewpoint, such a system would clearly fail to fulfil Drws Cefn's primary function of aiding exploration to the fullest degree. Specifically, you would still be forced to waste valuable time and effort at the start of each trip pointlessly grinding over the same old ground.

Also, there are the practicalities of where you would leave your car on the surface to consider.If you left it at Keeper's Pond you would have a long walk to begin your trip, if you left it at the Lamb and Fox you would have an even worse walk in shitty caving gear when you are knackered. Not insurmountable by any means if you are just doing a five hour through trip but fairly unappealing after a 14 hour digging or surveying trip.

For their part, the PDCMG dismissed the idea for two reasons.

Firstly, they do not want any more entrances at all, particularly in the SE quadrant of the cave.

Secondly, they pointed out (quite rightly) that such a system would potentially be open to the utmost abuse. For example, there would be nothing to stop anyone from leaving the gate open at the end of a trip (after exiting) so that another party could go into the cave via that entrance the following day or later in the week. Also, there would be nothing to prevent a party from sending their fastest members into the cave via the old entrance and then opening the gate from the inside for everybody else.

Finally (and we were in semi-agreement on this), such a system would lead to a plethora of through trips (all in the same direction) so creating yet more unnecessary footfall within the cave along one particular route.

What do I think now?

Well, I would say that all the points I have mooted above are still as relevant now as they were then.

But (as someone said to me the other day concerning the potential gating of Drws Cefn at all), it would certainly be preferable to concrete!

 

[Duncan Price]

For what it is worth, I cannot see any good reason why the Drws Cefn entrance cannot simply be gated and locked either with the same lock used for the Ogof Draenen entrance or both entrances be fitted with combination locks or "Derbyshire key" fastenings.

Although I haven't been down Ogof Draenen for some time (in part due to all the politics surrounding the place).  I have done some original exploration in the cave, participated in the survey work, helped dig open the Nunnery Entrance and also dug at Ogof Drws Cefn when the land around it was owned by the coal board.  I've done through trips from both the 2nd and 3rd entrances to the 1st one.  The first one is a bit short in terms of through-trips, the second didn't take 5 hours.

 

[NigR]

I've done through trips from both the 2nd and 3rd entrances to the 1st one.  The first one is a bit short in terms of through-trips, the second didn't take 5 hours.

The second through trip you mention (Draenen - Drws Cefn or vice versa) would only take 5 hours or more if you went somewhere else en route (e.g. one of the round trips). Going slowly, it could easily be done in not much more than 2 hours and you could make it much shorter than that if you really wanted to. That is why it is not a particularly attractive tourist trip as such and should in no way be compared to OFD along those lines. The 5 hour figure given earlier was just to provide contrast to the length of time required for worthwhile working (digging and surveying) trips, all of which would still extend well into double figures even using Drws as both entry and exit point.