Simpson Chains

[Ian Ball]

Hello,
I find the proposal to put chains in Simpson Pot distasteful. Please could I ask where they would be placed, what they are replacing etc? Perhaps having no interest in mines sets me apart, but I prefer the natural environment of caves to be maintained as much as possible and a chain I don't see as doing that. Is there anything I'm missing? Is this one chain going to see the removal of lots of anchors, and so be reduction in our caving impact overall?
I've asked my club CNCC rep to enquire further ahead of the Otober meeting.

 

[hannahb]

Where did you hear that that's going to happen?

 

[Ian Ball]

CNCC Meetings and Minutes

Meetings are open to all and we encourage you to come and either just observe or take part.

cncc.org.uk

Good point, a link to the October 26th agenda. The Simpson Pot chain is an additional item submitted after the agenda was produced.

 

[Wayland Smith]

I am against it.
I don't know where it is, or what it does, but it is something new so I don't want it.

 

[Steve Clark]

I would assume the chains would link two bolts together to a central mailion/ring, similar to a sport climbing bolted belay. Has the advantage of a better hang for the pitch rope and potentially the pull down side away from any run-point or obstruction. If they’re against the wall there also the option for the ring to rotate the setup by 90deg to avoid the rope rubbing on the walls. (There’s a pull-through bolt in heron that would benefit from a stainless mailion to do this rotation). The ring can also wear sacrificially without wearing the bolts, and can be replaced periodically.

Disadvantages would be them being unsightly / obviously engineered solution to a relatively minor problem. Unless there are extra bolts it also obstructs traditional hard rigging.

Personally, I think I’d be in favour of it was a couple of closely positioned bolts that were linked to make pull down easier. A whole y-hang made of chain in the best spot over a pitch for traditional rigging - no. Any kind of chain to replace a hand or traverse line, also no.

The tat in both pots is unsightly and a bit of a mess, but I’m also a caver that finds the up line at slit pot kinda essential so hey ho.

I really appreciate the effort put in by everyone at the CNCC and the out-reach/consultation.

 

[Loki]

If the proposal is something like this I’m all for it if it gets rid of tat and reduces the number of forum entries by people who’ve got thier ropes stuck using two unsuitably positioned p hangers. https://www.tradeinn.com/trekkinn/e...VLTsGAB1_hBkMEAQYBSABEgIc__D_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds
Sport climbers don’t seem to have a problem with this.

 

[Ian Ball]

As long as people don't try to do a pull through through the bolts as normal.
What tat will it remove? I usually think of rope when I see people referring to tat.

£16, that's cheap for a stainless product!

 

[topcat]

It's only a couple of decades overdue.....

 

[JoshW]

ooh one step closer to installation of wire traverses in classic pull through trips to prevent the accumulation of unsafe tat being left in situ 🤞🏼

 

[Ian P]

Hi all

Please find below some information that may help in explaining the situation.

Background:
Simpsons and Swinsto were surprisingly never anchored with consideration for pull through trips.

The CNCC committee agreed for anchor work to be carried out to rectify this.

The “standard” 2 anchor slightly offset set up has been used in all locations except for the 3 options at the end of Simpsons.
Slit Pot, Slit Pot “over the top” bypass and the last part of the Great Aven.

Currently there is an array of anchors in place and “Tat” in various states.

These locations would be best suited (In my opinion) to chain linking 2 anchors to a single point (a free spinning welded ring)

Reasons for this approach.

Having a single point to pull down from with no rope rub on a pitch in the 30m range is highly desirable.

Whilst the wear and tear on the anchors from pulling down is negligible, science says it must be happening, so moving this wear away from the anchor can only be a good thing on such a big pitch and will ensure the anchors are still sound in 500 years 😱.

The chains are only attached by mallions to the anchors so this is absolutely NOT permanent and can be removed at any time.

This solution will remove the need for cavers to add and keep adding “Tat”. Something that really shouldn’t be needed on such a popular cave.

Nothing proposed here would affect “hard rigging”. The aim in both caves has been to provide “multi” purpose pitch heads using the minimum anchors.

Aiming for a sustainable, fit for purpose solution (dare I say best practice) would seem like a good aim for a representative body.

What to do if you disagree.

We are blessed that the CNCC operates in a fully open and transparent manner and follows their constituent.

This is in the “proposal” stage so nothing is decided.

• Feel free to make your feelings known on this internet forum. (Obviously this has no “official” purpose but any debate and discussion is generally healthy)
• Make representation via your club if it is part of the committee.
• Make representation via the recently appointed individual rep if needed.
• Turn up to the meeting and make your feelings known here.



If the committee decide not to pass this proposal which is absolutely their right, at least it would save me dragging some chain through the cave 😂. However we will still be left with the issue of Tat appearing in these locations or problems pulling down.

Some pictures below of the areas currently.

Ian

 

[Ian P]

** Stop Press**

Following a visit today to lyon (Petzl) for some retail therapy I am putting a new proposal in.

The CNCC to change to these anchors 😱😂😂😂

 

[JoshW]

Honey, I shrunk the training officer?

 

[Brains]

The proposed chain and ring sounds very similar to the abseil point in Giants Hole to return to the crabwalk from the roof tube. DCA have maintained this for a number of years and it seems like a generally acceptable solution. I would say put them in. The in situ tat is an accident waiting to happen 😢

 

[Ian P]

Exactly like that 👍

If the proposal is something like this I’m all for it if it gets rid of tat and reduces the number of forum entries by people who’ve got thier ropes stuck using two unsuitably positioned p hangers. https://www.tradeinn.com/trekkinn/e...VLTsGAB1_hBkMEAQYBSABEgIc__D_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds
Sport climbers don’t seem to have a problem with this.

 

[Ian Ball]

I must not be a sport climber, as I do have a problem with this.
Please could I ask for more info on the sustainability claim, in particular why more material, additional chemicals, bolts and modification to the environment sustainable when it achieves exactly what is already achievable, a functioning pull through route.
In terms of safety risk, of people not being able to retrieve ropes because they use the wrong bolts. Remove the wrong bolt rather than add in extra bolts surely.
From the photographs, is all that equipment to be removed, by the installation of the chains?! Looks tidier than the last time I was up there.

 

[mikem]

Once the bolts wear out they will have to be replaced, which will cause considerably more damage to the rock than fixing a chain, & provided the ring rotates then it will actually last longer than a bolt, as not always wearing at same point, but can be replaced at any time without affecting the rock. It's only your aesthetics that are adversely affected by this.

 

[damian]

On balance, I am in favour of this. It is no more permanent than the anchors themselves, is vastly safer and less offensive on the eyes than the tat, and always removable if it is felt to be a bad idea with the benefit of hindsight.
What pleases me most, though, is that a genuine public debate is being had beforehand. Well done IanP and the CNCC, whatever the outcome.

 

[JAA]

I can’t really see an issue with them. If they create a nicer hang for pull through trips then great, makes life more straight forward for a lot of folk who use Simpson pot.

From my limited understanding they seem to be fully replaceable when worn out without further anchoring being needed so that seems fairly straight forward?

In terms of environmental impact I don’t see a drama with a couple of extra bolts tbh, it’s not as if it doesn’t have bolts already.

I don’t find the “tat” as wildly offensive as some, if we want caves to be in an entirely natural state then maybe we remove all anchors, take a shovel to valley entrance etc etc…

It appears from my perspective at least to be a sensible solution, making for a more efficient trip with less chance of people being stranded on pull through trips, proposed and installed by volunteers, and with the bonus of reducing the “need” for bits of rope and slings and what have you being left at pitch heads, which ironically some of the nay sayers on this proposal are also some of the biggest complainers over.

It would be a yes from me with a review after 12 months with the caving community to assess whether there has been an associated reduction in clutter left behind by trips and also whether there are working, along with perhaps some publicity from the CNCC about how to use them if they’re something cavers aren’t familiar with encountering.

But what do I know 🙂

 

[georgenorth]

I’ve always assumed that the reason this wasn’t done in the past was just the cost? I can’t really see any other disadvantages to be honest.

 

[Badlad]

I've added a poll to the top of this thread. It will help me cast my vote at the CNCC meeting. I'm there to represent those who cave outside of the club structure, so if anyone has anything to say on that specifically let me know.