Heron Pot anchors... Your thoughts?

[CNCC]

We have an ongoing discussion about anchors at Heron Pot that we would value caver feedback on.

A few months ago, we were contacted to advise us that the anchors on the first pitch in Heron Pot (the usual route with the water) were poorly placed for a pull-through, causing the visitor (who was a very experienced caver) some issues due to friction risking jamming of the rope.

Our anchor installer team went underground for a close look at the situation.

Our team concluded that there are two options to descend this pitch using fixed rigging; either an immediate take off and a descent with the water, or (as shown on our topos) a traverse away from the water to a Y-hang descent. The anchors are fine for fixed-rope descent, however, our team agreed that they are poorly placed for pull-through on either route, thus raising the question of how many others have had issues here?

This opened a discussion about whether an additional anchor or two should be placed for pull-through.

Options moving forward include:

• Doing nothing, acknowledging that the existing anchors are perfectly safe and sufficient, albeit not ideal for pullthrough.
• Add one or more additional anchors to facilitate a better pullthrough.

The CNCC anchor policy requires all installations to be approved by our Committee, to ensure they are carefully and democratically considered. There are a few exceptions to this where action is needed quickly on safety grounds, including:

• To replace defective ones.
• To address a situation where the existing anchors present high risk.

Heron Pot does not qualify, as the anchors are sound, allow fixed-rigging descent, and the risks of a stuck rope when pulling through are mitigated by the fact all teams should be carrying a second rope to avoid getting stranded. Therefore, we need to take this question to our Committee:

“Should CNCC Committee approve any additional anchors in Heron Pot?”

Instinctively CNCC does not seek to install additional anchors where they are not needed and so there will be considerable feeling that installing additional anchors at Heron just to facilitate a smoother pull-through on the first pitch is not justified. This would probably be our default stance.

The counter argument that a few people have put forward is that Heron Pot is a cave that many people visit purely for the purpose of pulling-through, often with novices. Should we acknowledge that one or two additional anchors would be sensible to reflect the intentions of many of those who visit the cave? It is a fair question and one that is best answered by engagement with as many people as possible.

We would be keen to hear the thoughts of cavers on this matter (in particular, the experiences of anyone who has done a Heron Pot pull-through on the current anchors).

• Have you had issues with the current anchors on the first pitch?
• Do you feel that being able to ‘pull-through’ here with greater success justifies the placement of one or two additional anchors?

We will be discussing this at our upcoming meeting. Feel free to post your thoughts here, email our secretary, make your thoughts known to your club if it is a CNCC Committee member, or come along to the meeting in person to discuss (29th October, 9:30am, Hellifield Village Institute).

 

[langcliffe]

Personally, I have never encountered a problem when pulling through in Heron, but I don't have a problem with the installation of extra anchors if it makes life easier for those that have difficulty with what is there.
A more pressing problem are people leaving lumps of rope and maillons on pull-though anchors, as in Swinsto.

 

[JasonC]

Having only descended Heron via the high-level route, I can't comment on the anchor placement, but as it's quite a short cave, it's not much of a hardship to hard-rig, and have part of the party de-rig while those who want to, exit the lower entrance. So I would have thought it a low priority for installing extra anchor(s).

 

[CNCC]

Langcliffe; FYI, we will be raising a discussion on abandoned ropes and metalwork under 'AOB' at our upcoming meeting, as several people have reported that this is becoming problematic and obstructive in some caves (particularly Simpson and Swinto). We don't really know yet whether this is something the wider caving community want us to take action on, but we will certainly be raising a friendly discussion.

 

[langcliffe]

Langcliffe; FYI, we will be raising a discussion on abandoned ropes and metalwork under 'AOB' at our upcoming meeting, as several people have reported that this is becoming problematic and obstructive in some caves (particularly Simpson and Swinto). We don't really know yet whether this is something the wider caving community want us to take action on, but we will certainly be raising a friendly discussion.

Sorry - I know that it's not really anything the CNCC can do about. It was more of a general whinge!

 

[Badlad]

I think you have considered the issue very well. On balance the argument seems to favour installing additional anchors.

One further point to think about is whether installation would actually encourage novice pull through trips. In my experience not everyone is very keen to exit through the duck.

 

[topcat]

^^ 'Instinctively CNCC does not seek install anchors additional anchors where they are not needed...'

So, was the Scanty Lardos bolt rash the exception to prove the rule then?

I think pull throughs should be installed in optimum positions, even if they are additional to the YHangs. They should also be fitted with heavy duty replaceable shackles/maillons (stainless of course), spannered in place, both for longevity and to ID the pull throughs. Certainly the popular classics would benefit from this approach. Pitches where rope hang-ups are common need looking at.

 

[Steve Clark]

I suspect I was one of those on the workshop where this problem was encountered.

It seems sensible to me to make the pull-through work as safely as possible. I didn't rig this pitch so not exactly sure of the arrangement. If it's the case that it can't easily be pulled-through off two bolts, then it would make sense to re-configure the bolts or add stainless hardware to allow this to work smoothly. It's not ideal on a popular / novice pull-through venue for folks to get ropes stuck, or worse be tempted to use just one bolt to get a better hang/clean pull.

 

[Ian Ball]

I'm inclined to say the fewer bolts the better but if it is a case of stopping people getting marooned between a pitch down and a jammed rope up, I'd go for an additional one.

 

[hannahb]

I would prefer no additional anchors. I don't recall having a problem on a pull through in that cave.

 

[JackSherlock]

Is the “up rope” maintained by the CNCC?

 

[CNCC]

Hi JackSherlock; The CNCC does not maintain any in-situ aids in caves, except for the stainless steel resin bonded anchors shown on our topos. Therefore, no ropes that you ever find in a cave will be CNCC maintained or approved. This includes the in-situ rope that we are aware of on the climb up to the high traverse route, which of course is very useful indeed as a navigational marker.

 

[mikem]

It does make sense to have pull through bolts separate to the normal hang, as they may not pull through if someone else has fixed rigging.

 

[topcat]

This includes the in-situ rope that we are aware of on the climb up to the high traverse route, which of course is very useful indeed as a navigational marker.

It is also useful for safety. The climb up is easy enough, but it is very near the wet route pitch head and not a place to fall, especially if water levels are high.

 

[topcat]

It does make sense to have pull through bolts separate to the normal hang, as they may not pull through if someone else has fixed rigging.

Good point.

 

[AlanClark]

I've done both pull through and hard rigged trips in there, didn't have any issues with the pull through from the first pitch and can't remember what I did. I think it was pull down on the left (downstream), I could see pulling down the other way might introduce some rub off the wall and additional rope drag. It was on shiny new 9mm rope as well so we had that in our favour.

 

[Rachel]

It does make sense to have pull through bolts separate to the normal hang, as they may not pull through if someone else has fixed rigging.

I agree. Last year I had to hard rig when I had hoped to pull through, as the cave was already hard rigged when I got there, making a pull through impossible.

Also, one of the pitches is very difficult to hard rig if you're short. There are 3 bolts that are easyish to get to, but the next two bolts, for the y hang, are much higher and a long way out, being at the back of a little alcove. It looks like an easy step onto a higher ledge for a tall person but 5'3" me has to hang off the last bolt, get a foot onto a ledge level with my shoulder, then sort of limbo dance onto the ledge. One more in-between bolt would make a huge difference for both ease and safety.

 

[Fjell]

I agree. Last year I had to hard rig when I had hoped to pull through, as the cave was already hard rigged when I got there, making a pull through impossible.

Also, one of the pitches is very difficult to hard rig if you're short. There are 3 bolts that are easyish to get to, but the next two bolts, for the y hang, are much higher and a long way out, being at the back of a little alcove. It looks like an easy step onto a higher ledge for a tall person but 5'3" me has to hang off the last bolt, get a foot onto a ledge level with my shoulder, then sort of limbo dance onto the ledge. One more in-between bolt would make a huge difference for both ease and safety.

I agree with this, for such an ickle cave the rig on that pitch is comically difficult. Maybe a traverse bolt could be added that does both purposes? It’s not the only one around where someone who is just over 5 feet has to do a dyno move and hope they can clip it in mid flight. Such a person has nearly two foot less reach than a six footer. Not very inclusive really, and something that should be checked when bolting for posterity. It should not be the case that the average woman literally cannot rig a normal route. Hardrawkin and Meregill spring to mind. SRT is for getting down the cave as easily and safely as possible, it’s not an opportunity for masochism, you can use ladders for that.

 

[IanWalker]

I don't support the adding of extra bolts in this situation.

From what I read here, most people have no problem. No-one has said they got a rope stuck.

And dual-rigging so that multiple parties can descend a cave at the same time by different techniques is not sufficient justification in my view.

p.s. I feel that if users currently struggle to reach the existing bolts that would be justification for improvement.

 

[CNCC]

A really great, and varied selection of viewpoints so far; Keep them coming folks