Simpson Chains

[mikem]

Yes, the discussion is important.

Figure 8 block can also be used on a pair of bolts, but not ideal positioning.

 

[Badlad]

It is interesting to reflect that many pitches were once descended without any fixed anchors. The Dave Elliot red bolts were controversial and they were replaced by the resin anchors of today. I guess that all fixed aids are unnecessary to some extent but seem to be welcomed eventually by all who use them.

 

[Babyhagrid]

Over time using natural anchors does more damage to the cave than using bolts. There is a column in swildons with a groove an inch deep where people have tied back ups around it.

 

[Ian Ball]

We are however, adding bolts where bolts exist.

 

[ChrisB]

We are however, adding bolts where bolts exist.

I understood that the bolts being added are for pull though, while the bolts that exist were installed for 'fixed' rigging. As a result people were getting their rope stuck, and some have required rescue. That may be avoidable with more experience, but experience is only gained by doing it and all cavers were novices once.

As I read it, the current CNCC consultation is not about adding new bolts for pull through, which has already been decided (see
https://cncc.org.uk/cave/simpsons-pot).

It's whether to install chains on the bolts to provide a single attachment point from two bolts. This avoids people using slings and odd bits of rope for that purpose. Such 'tat' is ugly and potentially less safe, as old slings occupy the anchors and may be used instead of new ones.

 

[hannahb]

I wasn't in favour of the additional anchors for pull-through trips, and I'm still baffled and saddened by it. So I'm not on favour of the chains - it feels like the thin end of the wedge to increasing amounts of stuff installed, admittedly a journey we are already on.

But here's a thought: how about installing a chain on just one of the routes mentioned? There surely doesn't need to be three pull-through routes. (There doesn't need to be any pull-through routes, I know, it's a nice-to-have).

 

[Steve Clark]

Considering the ease of use :

What is the plan for the size of central ring / mailion? Some sport climbing rings are big enough that a standard fig 8/9 knot would be a bit borderline for working as a blocking knot.

(In my opinion) it would be nice if it was small enough that you didn’t need to worry about using a blocking carabiner, metal fig 8 or an unknown jumbo knot.

Edit : most sport climbing chains are against the rock, is there a danger the end of the rope can whip around free/hanging y-hang chains and get stuck?

 

[PeteHall]

There surely doesn't need to be three pull-through routes. (There doesn't need to be any pull-through routes, I know, it's a nice-to-have).

There doesn't need to be any fixed rigging.
We don't need to go caving.
If we didn't go caving, we wouldn't need any anchors at all, but we also wouldn't be upset by any anchor that were installed as we wouldn't see them.

However, we do go caving, because we enjoy it, and most cavers enjoy pull-through trips once in a while. So better rigging for pull-through trips in the few caves where this is possible will allow people to enjoy that experience in a safer and easier way.

Nobody goes down Simpson for a sense of remote/virgin exploration. They go for fun; fun, made possible by fixed rigging.

 

[Cavematt]

I think PeteHall has hit the nail on the head for me.

The Simpson Pot pull-through trip is only possible due to early blasting by Bob Leakey (I think) and of course the artificial opening of Valley Entrance. These two actions have already changed the cave substantially by creating the option for the pull through trip, and completely removing the once remote nature of the Kingsdale Master Cave and the Roof Tunnel area. So this seems to be the wrong pothole to be concerned about minor changes to the modern day anchors/belays to make that pull through safer and more efficient on the longer pitches.

If this has the benefits of avoiding the proliferation of individual people's dangerous tat, that's even better

However, this does not mean I would support chains in a different pothole or pitch. Therefore, if I had a caveat associated with my support for this proposal, it would be that this does not give a green-light to use of chains elsewhere without a case-by-case consideration in the same way we are doing here, to achieve democratic discussion and to ensure that all less-visually obtrusive options are considered first.

 

[hannahb]

@PeteHall and @Cavematt perhaps I didn't make my point clear. I know the anchors and proposed chain(s) don't need to be there. They are nice to have. I wasn't suggesting anything else, and I'm certainly not suggesting that we don't have any anchors and don't go caving because we don't need to. I think you've put words in my mouth. I'm trying really hard not to bring any emotion into my consideration of the proposal and my posts here, and to remain civilised, but you're making that difficult by misrepresenting what I've said.

To be very clear: Do we really want three pull-through routes down a single pothole, when one would suffice? If the answer is yes, I think we are straying far from the minimal impact guidelines that the CNCC reportedly follows.

 

[JAA]

Over time using natural anchors does more damage to the cave than using bolts. There is a column in swildons with a groove an inch deep where people have tied back ups around it.

Indeed. The grooves in places like Ireby from ladder and lifeline are testament to that

 

[Cavematt]

To be very clear: Do we really want three pull-through routes down a single pothole, when one would suffice? If the answer is yes, I think we are straying far from the minimal impact guidelines that the CNCC reportedly follows.

Hi Hannah, I think this is a very good question that merits thought.

Would a chain on just one or two of the routes focus people onto that one or two routes, or would tat once again proliferate on the non-chain routes? Important to remember, I guess, is that these chains wouldn't incur any actual damage to the cave beyond the existing anchors they hang from, and can be removed, but I appreciate that they still go against the minimum impact caving guidelines.

Therefore, this is a good point, well raised, and offers a potentially useful 'compromise' solution.

(Saying that, if we were to be following the minimum impact caving guidelines to the letter we wouldn't install any anchors anywhere, so clearly CNCC have to strike a careful middle-ground in some aspects of their work).

 

[Bob Mehew]

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

I recall that many years ago the anchor at this point was found to be significantly worn through (10s of %). It may be that Derbyshire ropes are dirtier than those in the Dales but Bob Dearman, the then DCA Equipment Officer came up with the idea of a large stainless steel ring held by two wires crimped to two anchors. The key point of this set up was that the wear on the ring was distributed over a much larger surface area of the big ring. I like the move to chains instead of crimped wire. So from a historical view point, moving to a ring and chains for a pull through is a good idea.

View attachment 20554
They looked like a two sided version of this. But with a large maillon instead of a ring. And with maillons between the hangers and the chain. But this style of chain

One small point is that the stress from the anchor into the rock is transmitted into a cone whose point is at the end of the anchor with a base at the surface of the rock whose radius is approximately the depth of the anchor. (This size is linked to the strength of the rock.) So I am wary of set ups like these if one uses over long anchors. Plus the ring for threading the rope through is fairly small.

There has also been a few reports over the years of stress corrosion crack in anchors like these due to poor welding of links. (That is why the IC anchor is made from sheet stainless steel.) I think that the proposed location is unlikely to have a mechanism for concentrating salt though that is not necessarily true for possible anchor locations on the surface.

 

[PeteHall]

Important to remember, I guess, is that these chains wouldn't incur any actual damage to the cave beyond the existing anchors they hang from, and can be removed

I was about to say something similar.

For anyone who hasn't clicked through the earlier links, here is approximately what is actually proposed:

Note that the anchors were previously agreed and have already been installed. The discussion here is simply about using maillons to attach some chain and a pull-through hoop.

The only "impact" on the cave is for the few minutes that a caver us passing and is offended by the sight.

Is the sight of a bit of stainless steel really that much worse than the sight of a load of old tat?

 

[Alex]

Far safer and better to look at than tons of tat IMO, also reduces risks of rescues so I am all for it, especially as it does not involve adding additional anchors.
I mean even if some may judge it more unsightly, we already add a lot artificial things for cave protection. If we don't like these, then maybe we should remove all the tape, we put around formations, mud etc? (I do think in Wales they do actually go overboard with this, but I am being flippant, if that's not clear). Basically what I am saying sometimes we need to add things, to preserve caves and cavers.

 

[hannahb]

As far as I understand it, Ian Patrick has already installed the anchors for pull-throughs in the locations that are being discussed. Presumably these are fine for a pull-through as they are, otherwise they wouldn't have been installed, because a decision has not yet been made about the chains. (Please correct me if I've misunderstood.)

Why would we add chains to these useable anchors?

 

[Alex]

I would think this is because rope get stuck in the those anchors (due to much smaller holes than the ring on the chain). And being as it's a y-hang built in (if it goes across the passage, not on one side, it would give a better position for the rope hang down the pitch and prevent it wearing groves in the rock and the rope getting stuck, as it can on some pitches, due to just bad-luck sometimes.

But I am not clear on how these will be placed, I assume it won't be on the 2 anchors on one side of the passage and more across the passage with the ring in the middle, correct me if I am wrong of course.

 

[hannahb]

I would think this is because rope get stuck in the those anchors (due to much smaller holes than the ring on the chain). And being as it's a y-hang built in (if it goes across the passage, not on one side, it would give a better position for the rope hang down the pitch and prevent it wearing groves in the rock and the rope getting stuck, as it can on some pitches, due to just bad-luck sometimes.

But I am not clear on how these will be placed, I assume it won't be on the 2 anchors on one side of the passage and more across the passage with the ring in the middle, correct me if I am wrong of course.

But those anchors were placed specifically for pull-throughs, without the use of a chain. I can't get my head around why they're not fine as they are and, if they're not fine, why they were placed.

 

[JAA]

Pete pretty much sums up my sentiment on this in his posts. It’s the addition of some chains and a ring which will make pull through trips easier, reduce the reliance some groups seem to place on leaving slings and mallions (they must have more money than me!) and isn’t about installing additional anchors in a cave which let’s be realistic is already heavily “amended” by cavers.

The debate is good and the voicing of differing opinions.

Let’s remember that the CNCC represents the views of everyone now club members or not through @Badlad so do let your opinions be heard and even better why not go to one of the CNCC meetings and have it constructively debated. I’m not a part of the CNCC committee or anything but I’m sure that nothing is a “done deal” and a robust challenge is welcomed to any ideas, and that the overall opinion of the majority would hold sway as it has on other issues.
Dates and venues are on the website. Get involved

 

[Greybeard]

You are obviously correct. However it would be an improvement.

Is improving something which is not necessary a good thing?

Why not find out why ropes get stuck first.